Supreme Court of India
A.K. PATNAIK & SWATANTER KUMAR
Nagesh
Versus
State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2005
Decided on : 08-05-2012
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–Section 313–Examination of accused–Purpose of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put to accused material evidence appearing in the case against him as well as to provide him opportunity to explain his conduct or his version of case–Law required accused to provide some explanation as he was last seen in the room with deceased. (Para 17)
(1973)2 SCC 808; (2007)15 SCC 455; (2008)16 SCC 328; (2010)12 SCC 310; (2003)12 SCC 377–Relied.
Judgment :-
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. A Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore vide its judgment dated 19th December, 2003 while rejecting all the contentions raised by the accused Nagesh, confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court vide its judgment dated 18th January, 2000 convicting the accused for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved from the judgment of the High Court, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
2. We may, at the very outset, briefly refer to the facts as per the case of the prosecution. The deceased, Smt. Nagaratna, was a student of second year Pre-University College (PUC) at the relevant time. Her parents, namely Smt. Sumitra, PW4 and Shivarai Shetti, PW9, had six daughters. PW9 was running a small tea shop at Gokarna. The deceased was earlier staying with her parents. The accused No.1, Anant, was a close relative of Nagaratna and was unmarried at the relevant time. Accused No.1 also was the resident of Gokarna but at that time was residing at Belgaum. The other two accused, namely, Venketesh, Accused No.1 and Nagesh, Accused No.3, were brothers-in-law of Anant. All of them were residents of village Gokarna. Anant had pressed upon the parents of Nagaratna for sending her to Belgaum with him. During the Ganapathi festival, she had visited her parents at Gokarna and was very reluctant to go back to Belgaum. However, Anant again persuaded her parents to send her to Belgaum promising them to secure her a good job at Belgaum. Her parents, thus, had sent her back with him to Belgaum. Hence, at the relevant time, she was staying with Anant at Belgaum.
3. PW1, Smt. Roopa, is the owner of the building called ‘Sai Prasad’, bearing No.304/31 and CCB No. 18 situated at Shastri Nagar, Goodshed Road, Belgaum comprising of three blocks. She herself was staying in one of the blocks with her husband and children while Anant was staying in the second block along with the deceased, Nagaratna. Chotubhai, PW2, was also residing in the upstairs portion of the same block. In other words, PW1 and PW2, both were the immediate neighbours of Anant.
4. On7th October, 1993 at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening, Anant had gone to the temple leaving Nagaratna alone in the house. The accused Nagesh, appellant herein, came to the house of Anant and tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased and have sexual intercourse with her. But when she resisted such attempts then Nagesh assaulted her and is stated to have murdered her by administering poison.
5. Smt. Roopa, PW1, saw Anant returning to the house at about 8.30 p.m. and taking the deceased Nagaratna along with him outside the house by holding her hands. On her enquiry, she was told by Anant that Nagaratna was not well and was being taken for treatment to the doctor. PW1 also tried to enquire from Nagaratna as to what had happened to her but she was unable to give any reply except that she was producing or making some groaning/moaning sound of “huhu huhu”. Upon this, PW1 gave some saline water to Nagaratna. In the meantime, Venketesh came there with an Ambassador car. By then, some persons from the neighbourhood had also gathered there. Even a police jeep had come there. Thereafter, the deceased was put into the car and the police jeep as well as the car left from the place.
6. It is stated that Chotubhai, PW2 who was watching television in his house at about 8.45 p.m., came out of his house upon hearing some commotion outside the house. He saw the arrival of the Ambassador car and the deceased being put into the car by the accused persons. He was also told that Nagaratna was not well. Later, it was learnt that Nagaratna had expired.
7. On 8th October, 1993, at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning, the deceased Nagaratna was brought to the house of PW9 in
Kali Ram v. State of H.P. [(1973) 2 SCC 808]
Birendar Poddar v. State of Bihar [(2011) 6 SCC 350]
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 343]
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab [AIR 1954 SC 621]
Eradu v. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1956 SC 316]}”
Sucha Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab [(2003) 7 SCC 643]
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 209]
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (AIR 1992 SC 840).
Inder Singh and another v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091
State of U.P. v. Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1998)
Asraf Ali v. State of Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328]
Manu Sao v. State of Bihar [(2010) 12 SCC 310]
Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of W.B. [(2003) 12 SCC 377 Reg. V. Hodge 1838 2 Lewin 227
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.