Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. Veerappa, K. Natarajan, JJ.
Malathi @ Maluruthamma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2015, 767 of 2015
Decided On : 29-09-2020
Hanumantharaya C H, Advocate, Chandrashekar R P, Advocate, S. Rachaiah, Advocate
Headnote:
The court considered the appeals filed by the accused persons challenging their conviction and sentence for offenses including murder, destruction of evidence, and criminal intimidation. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of an eyewitness, PW10, who was present at the scene of the crime and witnessed the events leading to the deceased's death. The defense raised several objections to the prosecution's case, including the delay in filing the complaint, inconsistencies in the eyewitness's testimony, and the failure to examine certain witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Mahadev, was found dead in his house on May 18, 2005. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, Accused No.1 (the deceased's wife) and Accused No.2 (the deceased's brother-in-law), had killed the deceased by kicking him in the testicles and then hanging his body from a fan to make it appear like suicide. The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW10, an eyewitness who was present in the house at the time of the incident, as well as medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence to support its case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased's death was a homicide and that the accused persons were responsible for his death. The court rejected the defense's objections, finding that the delay in filing the complaint was satisfactorily explained, that the inconsistencies in the eyewitness's testimony were minor and did not affect the credibility of her evidence, and that the failure to examine certain witnesses did not undermine the prosecution's case. The court also found that the medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence corroborated the eyewitness's testimony and supported the prosecution's case.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in filing the complaint by PW10 is fatal to the case of the prosecution, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the Accused No.2 has made out a case to interfere with the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence in so far as convicting Accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction in so far as convicting Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 506 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, with default clauses, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the complaint was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, that the inconsistencies in the eyewitness's testimony were minor and did not affect the credibility of her evidence, and that the failure to examine certain witnesses did not undermine the prosecution's case. The court also found that the medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence corroborated the eyewitness's testimony and supported the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by Accused No.2 in part, modifying his conviction from murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and reducing his sentence accordingly. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Accused No.1 and confirmed her conviction and sentence for the offenses of destruction of evidence and criminal intimidation under Sections 201 and 506 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT
B.Veerappa, J. - Crl.A.No.408 of 2015 is filed by the accused No.2 and Crl.A.No.767 of 2015 is filed by the accused No.1 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2015 made in S.C.No.472/2008 on the file of the LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-52), sentencing the accused No.2 to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo sentence for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo sentence for one year and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the accused No.1 to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
3. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.2-appellant in Crl.A.No.408 of 2015 is the elder brother of accused No.1/appellant in Crl.A.No.767 of 2015 and the accused No.1 is the wife of deceased Mahadeva @ Nagamadegowda. The deceased Mahadeva was suspecting the fidelity of accused No.1 and he had not sent her to the marriage of accused No.2, and the deceased used to quarrel with accused No.1, frequently. The accused No.2 who could not tolerate the behaviour of the deceased, often picking up quarrel with accused No.1 alleging that accused No.1 is having illicit relationship with one Sarvesh of Kamsagara, colluding with accused No.1, with a common intention of murdering Mahadeva, brought two others to the house of Mahadeva, picked up quarrel by saying that accused No.1 would get peace only if he (Mahadeva) dies, kicked forcibly on the external genital organ of Mahadeva. When Mahadeva fell down, accused No.2 killed him by putting cloth into his mouth. Thereafter, with an intention to destroy the evidence, both accused Nos.1 and 2 along with two other persons, hanged the dead body to the fan in the hall of the house using veil to give an impression that Mahadeva committed suicide by hanging himself and criminally intimidated the informant-P.W.10/Kum.Rashmi, by threatening that she would meet the same end, if she discloses the incident to anybody. Later, the accused No.1 bought down the dead body by cutting the veil and intimated the relatives through P.W.10. Thereafter, the accused No.1 along with the relatives shifted the dead body to Kammasandra, the village of the deceased, for cremation.
4. It is further case of the prosecution that after shifting the dead body to Kammasandra in order to pay last rites, the body was taken to the mortuary. At that time, the relatives of the deceased found swelling injury on the scrotum of the deceased. Therefore, they suspected that the deceased might have died due to assault. Therefore, P.W.5-brother of the deceased went to Sathanur police and lodged the complaint which was registered in UDR No.10/2005. Then, the Sathanur police came to the spot, conducted the inquest panchanama and on the next day, the body was subjected to postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination, it was revealed that the injury on the scrotum was ante mortem in nature and the ligature mark on the neck was postmortem in nature. Therefore, P.W.5 and other relatives enquired with P.W.10 who was staying with the deceased and accused No.1 in their house questioning that the postmortem r
