SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 131

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.)
ESHWARAIAH AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Criminal Appeal No. 514 of 1988{From the Judgment and Order dated April 1, 1987 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl. A. No. 138 of 1985}, decided on January 27, 1994
Advocates appeared
Indeevar Goodwill, Advocate, for the Appellants;
M. Veerappa, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Advocates:
INDIVAR GUDWILL, M.VIRAPPA

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 Conviction under - Appeal - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased, a bachelor, alone residing in his house - Accused No. 2, mistress of the deceased used to visit his house frequently at night. Shortly before the death of deceased, both the accused entered the house of the deceased - Some sound like cries heard by the next door neighbour - Door not opened despite tapping on several times by the neighbours - Door had to be broken - Both the accused were found hiding under a cot in the bed room of the deceased. Deceased lying dead with injuries on his person - No explanation furnished by the accused about their presence and circumstances under which the deceased died - Presence of blood on wearing apparel of deceased not explained - Medical evidence that death was due to asphyxia and it was a case of homicidal death - Circumstances form a complete chain which point out the complicity of the accused in causing the murder - Convicting u/s. 302/34 warranted against both the accused. (Para 9)

Judgment

RAY, J.- This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and imposing sentence of life imprisonment to both the appellants by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court by judgment dated April 1, 1987 in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1985. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused appellants by VIII Additional City and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City on January 2, 1985 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1983.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Ramesh was a bachelor and was residing in House No. 6/5, 9th Cross, Adarsha Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore. During the night between December 14 and 15, 1982, he was murdered by the accused persons. It is undisputed that the accused 2 Smt Mayamma, was a mistress of the deceased for about 3-4 years prior to the date of the incident and she was residing in Ramachandra Raos Vatara in which the house of the deceased was also situated. The said accused was often visiting the house of the deceased Ramesh during the night time. She had filed an application claiming maintenance from her husband PW 7 and had secured an order in her favour. While the said accused Mayamma was attending to her case for maintenance, she became acquainted with accused 1 Eshwaraiah, who was a Constable attached to the Wilson Garden Police Station and intimacy developed between accused 2 and accused 1. On December 14, 1982, both the accused witnessed a cinema show in Uma Talkies and returned together. They were seen near the house of the deceased at about 1 or 1.15 a.m. on December 15, 1982. Accused 2 tapped on the front door of the house and Ramesh opened the door. At that time accused 1 was standing at a little distance from the house. After accused 2 entered the house, accused 1 followed her and also entered the house. PW 1 Ramachandra Rao who was residing in the house adjacent to the house of the deceased heard a sound of cries and he woke up. He came out and went to the house of his neighbour Hemoji Rao (PW 3), a retired Constable and requested him to accompany him to find out what was the cause for the sound. Both of them went near the house but they did not hear any sound from the said house. PW 4 Sundaresh, the elder brother of the deceased had his house nearby and PWs 1 and 3 went to his house and woke him up and informed him about the sound which PW 1 had heard. The three of them then came near the house of the deceased and PW 4 tapped the door of the house but there was no response. PW 4 thereafter left the place saying that he would inform his brother Ramachandra Rao and also his cousin Inderesh. The said two persons were informed and they returned immediately to the house of the deceased. Seetharama Reddy PW 2, was a neighbour of the deceased and he woke up on hearing the barking of a dog and he came near the house of the deceased. Then PW 1 and PW 3 told him what PW 1 had heard. PW 2 also tapped the door of the house but there was no response. By that time, PW 4 returned. One Raju known to PW 4 happended to come there and PW 4 requested Raju to go and inform the police. Raju thereafter went away and returned with two Police Constables PW 5, H. Nanjundappa and another Police Constable Basavaraju. After the two police constables came to the place of incident, PW 4 broke open the window-pane and flashed the torch inside. They did not see anything. Then the front door of the house of the deceased was broken open with the size stone MO 1 and all the said persons entered the house. By that time other residents of the Vatara also awoke including PW 13 Vijaya. The light of the front door of Ramesh was switched on but nothing was seen there. The door leading to the bedroom was little open. They entered the bedroom and switched on the light but they did not see anything. When PW 2 flashed the torch underneath the cot they noticed accused 1 and accused 2 couched below it, s


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top