Venkataramanaswamy vs The State of Karnataka

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2007 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - IV, Bangalore Rural District, in Sessions Case No. 40/2007, whereby the appellant - accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. u/s 506 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased -Nagaraj was residing alone at Belatturu Colony. He allegedly had illicit relation with Venkatalakshmi - P.W. 11. The accused was apprehending that the deceased would give the entire property to Venkatalakshmi - P.W. 11. He allegedly assaulted his father - Nagaraj on 02.04.2006 at about 6.00 P.M., with the chopper. When the incident occurred Geetha - P.W. 10 was present in the house and she, according to the prosecution, witnessed the incident. Smt. Ammayamma - P.W. 13, mother of the deceased was also in the house at the relevant time. After the occurrence, Geetha - P.W. 10 disclosed the incident to her mother -Venkatalakshmi - P.W. 11, to one Lakshmi - P.W. 5, and to Gopalappa - P.W. 6. She then lodged an FIR, on the basis of which, the crime was registered and investigation was set in motion. After the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed. The case was then committed to the Sessions Court.

Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and placed several documents, such as P.M. report, different panchanamas, etc., on record along with five material objects, namely Chopper (M.O.1), Banian (M.O.2), Lungi (M.O.3), Bloodstained Mud (M.O.4) and Sample of Mud (M.O.5). Based on the evidence of Geetha - P.W. 10 supported by the evidence of Gopalappa - P.W. 6, Venkatalakshmi -P.W.11 and Ammayamma - P.W. 13 and so also the recovery panchanama, the Sessions Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence with their assistance and other materials from the record.

The star witness in the case is Geetha (P.W.10). She is the daughter of Venkatalakshmi - P.W. 11 with whom, the deceased allegedly had illicit relation. On the date of incident, i.e., 02.04.2006, Geetha was in the house of the deceased. At the relevant time, namely about 7.30 P.M., she was watching T.V., in the house along with the other children, namely Manju and Ravi. The accused was also in the house. The deceased, Nagaraj was sleeping inside the house and according to this witness, the accused was moving in and out and was angry. At that time the accused came out from the room, where the deceased was sleeping, and fled stating "you deserve this"

(I) Geetha - P.W. 10 immediately went inside the room and saw the deceased who was lying in a pool of blood. She immediately rushed to the house of her sister-in-law, Rajeshwari and informed about the incident. Rajeshwari told her to inform the incident to Gopalappa (P.W.6). Geetha informed the incident to her friend, Lakshmi (P.W.4). They both went to the house of Gopalappa to inform him about the incident. He was not present in the house. When they were returning back, on the way, the accused chased them stating that "you wanted to disclose everything to Gopalappa." Geetha and Lakshmi (P.Ws. 10 and 4) on seeing the accused and hearing his utterances, ran towards the house of Gopalappa and took shelter there. Thereafter they went to Kadugodi Police Station and lodged the FIR. Geetha - P.W. 10 supported the prosecution case partly and hence she was declared hostile. In the cross examination on behalf of the prosecution, she admitted that she had seen the accused assaulting the deceased with chopper on his neck.

In support of the evidence of Geetha - P.W. 10, the prosecution examined Siddaramaiah - P.W. 2, who stated in his deposition that he had been to the house of the deceased at 4.15 P.M., and when he had seen the deceased, the accused, the mother of the deceased (P.W.13) and Geetha (P.W.10) were in the house. His evidence corroborate the evidence of Geetha - P.W. 10 to the extent to establish the presence of the accused and the deceased in the house before the alleged occurrence. The prosecution then examined Venkatalakshmi - P.W. 11, the mother of Geetha - P.W. 10. On the date of the incident, she had left Geetha at the house of the deceased. The deceased had told her that he would send Geetha next day. After the occurrence, Geetha informed P.W. 11 about the alleged incident over telephone. She had informed Venkatalakshmi - P.W. 11 that the accused committed murder of his father - Nagaraj. In the cross examination, in our opinion, nothing was elicited so as to disbelieve this witness. The prosecution also examined Ammayamma - P.W. 13, the mother of the deceased. She also stated that at the relevant time, she was in the house, apart from the deceased, accused and Geetha - P.W. 10. Her evidence also supports the prosecution case to establish that the deceased and the accused were in the house and the accused was seen by P.W. 10 coming out from the room of the deceased and fleeing away stating that "he deserves it." The evidence of all these witnesses support the prosecution and more particularly the evidence of Geetha - P.W. 10, who had witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased. Apart from the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution also placed reliance on the recovery of chopper at, the instance of accused. After the incident, accused was absconding for about four months and he surrendered before the Magistrate on 06.08.2006. He was in police custody from 14.08.2006 for a period of three days. On 15.08.2006 he made a voluntary statement, Ex. P-9. On the basis of the statement made by him, on 16.08.2006 mahazar was drawn (Ex.P-10) and at the instance of the accused, the chopper was recovered. Though, one Obalesh (P.W.15), who was panch witness to the seizure mahazar of chopper, did not support the prosecution, N.M. Ramalingappa - P.W. 14, Circle Inspector of Police - the Investigating Officer, proved the recovery of chopper at the instance of the accused. Apart from that the conduct of the accused also supports the prosecution case. He was absconding for about four months and then on his own surrendered before the Court. All the evidence on record, in our opinion, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The Sessions Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective for recording the order of conviction. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same and that we are also satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charge of murder against the appellant - accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the appeal is dismissed.