Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
N. Ananda and Pradeep D. Waingankar, JJ.
State By Police Circle Inspector —Appellant
versus
Ramappa Alias Ramesha and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1152 of 2011
Decided on 16.12.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Sri Vijayakumar Majage, High Court Government Pleader
For the Respondents:Sri S. Vishwajith Shetty, Advocate
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302/34 — Murder of deceased in his hurt by knife blow injuries — Prosecution case against two accused-respondents was based upon circumstantial evidence — Acquittal of both accused by trial court — State appeal — Deceased had developed illicit relations with accused No.2 who was wife of accused No.1 — Accused No.2 moved from her village and started living with deceased in watchman shed of deceased — Deceased was employed as watchman with PW1 — Accused No.1 with his two children came to place of work of accused No.2 and deceased and lived there for these days — Deceased was founded murdered by PW1 on one morning in his shed and both accused were found to have left the place — Investigating officer claimed to have recovered weapon knife at the instance of accused — Prosecution relied on PW1 on deceased last seen in company of both accused — Evidence however showed that there was gap of two days since witness saw deceased with both accused and when dead body of deceased was noticed in shed — Recovery of knife could not be believed when accused were alleged to have volunteered statement on 12.12.2008 but recovery was effected on 16.12.2008 — Acquittal was not liable to be interfered with. (Paras 14 to 26)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The respondents (hereinafter referred as ‘accused 1 and 2’) were tried and acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the State is before this Court.
2. We have heard Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader for State and Sri S. Vishwajith Shetty, learned Counsel for accused.
3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows:
Accused 1-Ramappa alias Ramesha is the husband of accused 2-Heramani Chandravva alias Chandramma. They are the natives of Arikere Village, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District. Deceased Thippesha was a resident of Kasaraki Village, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District. Deceased Thippesha had developed illicit intimacy with accused 2-Heramani Chandravva alias Chandramma. Therefore, he brought her to Dakshina Kannada. Deceased Thippesha joined as a Watchman in a foundry by name M/s. Krishna Castings, of which P.W. 1-C.V. Gopalakrishna was the owner. Deceased Thippesha was working as a Watchman. P.W. 1-C.V. Gopalakrishna had provided a watchman shed in which deceased Thippesha and accused 2 were residing as husband and wife. Accused 1 along with his two children came to the place of work of accused 2 and deceased on 4-12-2008. Accused 1 and his children stayed with accused 2 and deceased Thippesha in watchman shed till 7-12-2008.
During the intervening night of 7/8-12-2008, accused 1 and 2 shared common intention to commit the murder of deceased Thippesha. When deceased Thippesha was in an inebriated state, accused 1 assaulted deceased Thippesha with a knife and caused his death. Thereafter, accused 1 and 2 along with their children left that place in an autorickshaw, driven by P.W. 2-Ibrahim to Bantwala. P.W. 1-C.V. Gopalakrishna came to know of death of Thippesha during morning of 8-12-2008.
4. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that 7-12-2008 was Sunday and it was a holiday. P.W. 1 and other workers had not come to M/s. Krishna Castings. On 8-12-2008, P.W. 1 lodged first information. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested, a knife and bloodstained clothes were recovered on the information volunteered by accused 1 and 2 as per Exs. P. 15 and P. 16.
5. The prosecution has relied on following circumstances:
I. Motive.
II. Deceased Thippesha was last seen alive in the company of accused 1 and 2.
III. Accused 1 and 2 disappeared from the place of incident after the incident.
IV. Recovery of a knife and bloodstained clothes on the information volunteered by accused 1 and 2 from possession of accused 1 and 2.
6. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W.1-C.V. Gopalakrishna and other witnesses that they had learnt from deceased Thippesha that accused 2-Heramani Chandravva alias Chandramma was his wife.
In the first information lodged by P.W. 1, it is stated that on 4-12-2008, the elder brother of deceased and the children of deceased had come to Krishna Castings Aluminum Foundry. On 6-12-2008, he saw the deceased, wife of the deceased (accused 2) and the elder brother and two children in the watchman shed which was provided to the deceased.
7. The prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that accused 1 is not related to the deceased. This is clear from the evidence of P.W. 3.
8. P.W. 3-Yallappa is the elder brother of deceased Thippesha. P.W. 3 has deposed that deceased Thippesha was his younger brother; accused 1 is the husband of accused 2, they are the natives of Arikere Village, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District; deceased had married about 5-6 years prior to his death; deceased had two sons; deceased was working in the land of one Melagiri; about one year prior to date of his death, deceased had come to Dakshina Kannada; deceased worked in Dakshina Kannada for about 5-6 months and thereafter he returned to his village along with accused 2; P.W. 3 and his family members scolded deceased for having brought accused 2 with him; therefore, deceased and accused 2 left Kasaraki Village (village of deceased Thippesha) and
