JUDGMENT

Harish Kumar J.—The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bidar, in S.C.No.82/2012, by her judgment dated 23.10.2013, held accused No.1 guilty of offences punishable under Section 302, 394 and 201 IPC while acquitting him of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC; and also acquitted accused No.2 and accused No.3 of the offences punishable under Section 376, 302, 394 and 201 R/w Section 34 IPC. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (referred to as Sessions Judge hereafter) sentenced the first accused to death in connection with offence punishable under Section 302 IPC besides imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of two years and further sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and 3 years respectively for the offences punishable under Section 394 and 201 IPC besides imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the offences with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year each. Having imposed death sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Sessions Judge submitted the proceedings to this Court under Section 366 of Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation. The first accused has also preferred an appeal challenging the judgment of conviction for the offences as mentioned above.

2. Precisely stated, the prosecution case is as follows:

On 15.08.2011 at about 11.00 AM, when PW.5-Prabhu was standing near B.S.S.K. Office at Mangali village, PW.11 Tajoddin came running towards him and told him of having seen a dead body of a woman near a cenotaph in his agricultural land when he went there for bringing grass. Thereafter Prabhu went to that place with Tajoddin and two others viz., Vaijinath and Jagannath and saw a dead body of an unknown woman aged around 35 to 38 years and whose face had been covered with the saree she was wearing. He suspected murder and made a report to police who registered an FIR against unknown persons. On 30.08.2011, the first accused was produced before PW.21, Basaveshwar, a Police Inspector, in connection with another crime registered in Crime No.94/2012. It is stated that the first accused gave a confession statement disclosing his involvement in the death of the deceased of this case and also revealed the involvement of accused No.2 and 3. This confession statement led to seizure of some jewellary said to be belonging to the deceased and thus all the three accused stood charge sheeted.

3. The Sessions Judge, for convicting the first accused has mainly relied on the oral testimonies of PW4, PW10 and PW14 and recovery of jewellary based on the confession statement of first accused. The main findings given by the Sessions Judge are as below:—

“The case is based on circumstantial evidence. PW.13 who was examined to prove last seen theory has not supported the prosecution. The deceased was an unknown woman, her identity was not traced and it is immaterial also. Inspite of last seen theory being unproved, the recovery of jewellery of the deceased from accused No.1 based on his confession statement is enough to connect him with crime. His failure to explain as to how he could possess the jewellery of the deceased, when he was examined under Section 313 of CrPC, provides a missing link. Further, the recovery is also proved by PW4 and PW14 and there is no reason to disbelieve them. The evidence of PW.7, the doctor establishes that the death was due to strangulation, and MO.5 - a rope seized from the possession of first accused further strengthens the prosecution case. There were series of murders of women mysteriously and the cases were being investigated by one police officer before whom accused made a disclosure by giving a confession statement. It was not just a narration, but it led to recovery for which there is corroborative evidence of PW.4 and PW.14 and the narration made by the first accused before police finds corroboration from PW10. The argument of defence counsel that the confession of first accused is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act