SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 123

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
B.A. Umesh
Versus
Regr.Gen.High Court of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.285-286 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.3131-3132 of 2009)
Decided on : 01-02-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Ms. Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith, Ankolekar Gurudatta, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, B.S. Gautham, Advocates.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376, 302 and 392-Rape, murder and robbery-Death sentence-Prosecution case fully corroborated by medical evidence - Identity of appellant fully established - Evidence of violent sexual intercourse and strangulation- Circumstantial evidence makes out complete chain of events to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that it was appellant and appellant alone, who could have committed offences-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 9, 13, 26, 41, 42, 48, 50 and 55)

       Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376, 302 and 392-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 345(3)-Rape, murder and robbery-Death sentence - Extreme depravity with which offences were committed and merciless manner in which death was inflicted on victim, brings it within category of rarest of rare cases. which merits death penalty-Antecedents of appellant and his subsequent conduct indicates that he is a menace to society and is incapable of rehabilitation-Offences committed by appellant were neither under duress nor on provocation-Death sentence confirmed. (Paras 56 and 57)

       (1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 2 SCC 470 - Relied.

       Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920-Sections 2(a), 4 and 5-Indian Evidence Act,1872-Section 73 - Comparison of signature-Specimen writings is to be given for the purpose of enabling Court to compare and not for the purposes of enabling Investigating or other agency to make any comparison of such handwriting. (Para 15)

       Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 45-Evidence of a finger print expert is not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate some items of substantive evidence. (Para 15)

Judgment :

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These Appeals have been filed by the Appellant questioning the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2007, passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Referred Case No.3 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.2408 of 2006 rejecting the Appellant's appeal and confirming the death sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court VII, Bangalore City, in S.C.No.725 of 1999, by judgment and order dated 26th October, 2006.

3. According to the prosecution, Jayashri, mother of Suresh (P.W.2) and sister of Manjula (P.W.22), was married to one Dr. Maradi Subbaiah who died about two years prior to 28.02.1998 on which date the incident which resulted in S.C.No.725 of 1999 is alleged to have occurred. After the death of her husband, Jayashri and her son Suresh, were staying in premises No.14/8 situated at Dasarahalli, Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Bangalore, as a tenant of one Lalitha Jaya (P.W.8). Suresh was studying in Upper K.G. in Blossom English School. His mother would drop him to school at Bagalkunte at 8.30 a.m. and would bring him back at 1.00 p.m. after classes were over.

4. On 28.2.1998, Jayashri took Suresh to school as usual at 8.30 a.m. and brought him back at 1.00 p.m. and they had lunch together in the house. After lunch, Suresh went out to play with his friends and apart from Jayashri there was no one else in the house. Suresh returned to the house at about 5.00 p.m. and saw the accused, B.A. Umesh, in the hall of the house who introduced himself as "Uncle Venkatesh" and told Suresh that his mother, Jayashri, was possessed by the devil and that he had, therefore, tied her hands and was going to bring a Doctor. The accused then left the house with a bag filled with articles. According to the prosecution, Basvaraju (P.W.10) and Natesh

(P.W.11) saw the accused going out of Jayashri's house with the bag on 28.2.1998 at about 4.30 p.m. Suresh then went into the room and saw his mother lying flat on the ground with blood on the floor and her hands tied together with a sari at one end and the other end of the sari was tied to a window. As she did not respond to his voice, Suresh went to Kusuma Shetty (C.W.7), a neighbour, and told her what he had seen. Kusuma Shetty called Geetha Hegde (C.W.6) and Lalitha Jaya (P.W.8) and together they went near Jayashri's house with Suresh and through the window they saw Jayashri lying on the ground. Lalitha Jaya then called Bylappa (P.W.7), a Police Constable, living in the same locality who telephoned Papanna (P.W.9), the Inspecting Officer, who came to the place of occurrence with Police Constable Garudappa (P.W.6). In the meantime, on being informed, A. Kumar (P.W.14) a Police Constable working in the Dogs Squad, Jagannath (P.W.16), a Police Photographer and R. Narayanappa (P.W.13) a Police Inspector and finger-print expert arrived at the place of occurrence. B.N. Nyamaagowda (P.W.29), the Investigating Officer, found that Jayashri was lying dead on the floor with her genitals exposed and blood oozing from her vagina. The doors of an almirah in the house were open and articles in the house were lying scattered. He prepared a report and sent the same through P.W.6 to the Police Station to register a crime. P.W.6 took the said report to Peenya Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.108 of 1998. He then prepared a First Information Report and sent the same to Court. A copy of the F.I.R. was also sent to P.W.29, the Investigating Officer. P.W.14 had come from the Dogs Squad with Dhrona, a sniffer dog, who having sniffed the dead body and Jayashri's clothes went towards the pipeline and returned. P.W.16, the Police Photographer, took photographs of the dead body and the scene of offence. P.W.13, the finger-print expert, found finger-prints on a wall clock and also on the handle of the almirah (Exts. P.14 and P.15). P.W.29, thereafter, conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panch witnesses, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, and sen



























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top