Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.A. PATIL, MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, JJ.
Dasappa S/o Late Pydal - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2014
Decided On : 20-07-2018
For the Appellant : Sri K. Dinesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri Chethan Desai
Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974] - Section 154 - FIR - Delay in lodging - FIR lodged 4 days after alleged incident - Decomposition process of dead body generally starts after 24 hours of death and foul smell starts emitting after 72 hours of death - Dead body found to be covered with mud and not kept in open - Only after mud covering dead body displaced, foul odour started emanating after 3 days - Failure of accused to inform police about his wife missing at first instance - Conduct of accused in not informing police about his wife missing and giving false explanation to his son regarding whereabouts of deceased, forming another link of circumstances against him - FIR not found to be lodged belatedly.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 [C.A. NO. 1/1872] - Section 8 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Section 302 - Murder - Motive - Since 7-8 years prior to incident, accused suspected fidelity of deceased and harassed her in that regard - Son of accused deposing about his father doubting character of his mother and also harassing her - Testimony of son of accused corroborated by his other siblings - Relations between accused and his children, cordial - No reason for son of accused to falsely implicate his own father - Accused proved to have strong motive to eliminate deceased.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 [C.A. NO. 1/1872] - Section 106 - Burden of proof - Accused proved to be present in house at time of incident, on basis of testimony of his son - On enquiry about whereabouts of deceased, accused gave evasive reply that she went to native place - Dead body recovered was buried near oven inside house of accused - Accused unable to explain circumstance under which his wife died - Instead accused gave false explanation, supporting hypothesis about him being perpetrator of crime - Held, Accused unable to discharge burden of proof by providing explanation regarding homicidal death of his wife.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Section 299 - Homicidal death - Dead body found buried inside rented house where both parties resided together - At time of recovery, nylon rope found around neck of deceased - Post-mortem report stating presence of ligature marks on neck of deceased - Body stated to be bloated, face distorted and tongue protruded out of oral cavity - Death caused due to compression of neck by strangulation - Homicidal death held, proved.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Sections 302, 498-A - Cruelty and murder - Accused husband allegedly strangulated his wife, out of suspicion over her fidelity - No eye-witness to incident - Homicidal death of deceased caused due to compression of neck by strangulation - Accused suspected fidelity of deceased and harassed her in that regard since 7-8 years, proving motive - Accused unable to discharge burden of proof by providing explanation regarding homicidal death of his wife - Conduct of accused in not informing police about his wife missing and giving false explanation to his son regarding whereabouts of deceased, forming another link of circumstances against him - Chain of circumstances complete - Conviction, held, proper.
The accused/appellant has preferred this appeal, against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 09.05.2013, passed in Sessions Case No. 23/2011, on the file of the Court of IV Addl. Sessions Judge at Mysuru, wherein the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused for the charged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that;
Deceased Vasanthamma is the wife of the accused. They were married for the past 20 years and living in a rented house belonging to one P.Bhoja, situated in Gendegowdara Colony in H.D. Kote Taluk for the past 10 years by running a teashop and also by doing coolie work. Their son viz., AneeshP.W.1 and daughter viz., Asha P.W.4 were residing in Mysuru. Another son viz., Aruna P.W.15 and daughter viz., AnugnaP.W.5 were living along with their parents. Since 7 to 8 years, the accused was in the habit of ill-treating his wife Vasanthamma, suspecting her fidelity. He was physically and mentally ill-treating her telling that she is having illicit relationship with others, who were visiting the teashop. On 31.07.2010, their younger son Aruna [P.W.15] called his brother Aneesh [P.W.1] and informed that his mother was not in the house. P.W.1 contacted his relatives over phone to know the whereabouts of his mother but, he could not locate her. He came to Gendegowdara Colony on 04.08.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. and since his mother was not in the house, he enquired with his father i.e., the accused. The accused informed him that his mother has gone to her native place by bus. P.W.1 suspected some foul play as he smelt foul odour emanating inside the house and when he searched the house, he noticed a portion of the feet protruding out from a heap of mud, by the side of oven, which was meant for baking bread. He went to H.D. Kote Police Station and lodged the complaint before the PSI–P.W.19 and a case was registered in Crime No. 362/2010 of the said Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Thereafter, the FIR was transmitted to the jurisdictional Court. Requisition was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hunsur to exhume the dead body and hold inquest. CPI P.W. 17 took over further investigation and on the same night, the accused was arrested and the voluntary statement of the accused was recorded as per Ex.P17.
On the next day i.e., on 05.08.2010, spotmahazar as per Ex.P2 was conducted and the dead body was exhumed. In this regard, a mahazar as per Ex.P3 was drawn in the presence of the panch witnesses. Inquest mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P4. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination by P.W.14. Thereafter, the clothes etc., of the deceased were seized under a mahazarEx.P5. Later, the ligature material i.e., ropeM.O.5 which was around the neck of the deceased was also seized. After completion of the investigation, P.W.17 filed the charge-sheet against the accused.
After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC., to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to 28 and M.Os.1 to 5. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence appeared against him when he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and claimed that he was not in the village at the time of incident. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf.
The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused for the charged offences holding that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
3. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. K. Dinesh Kumar, appearing for the accused/ app
