Dismissed

Shri.Kumar S/O. Subhas Goundi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2021CRL.A/100134/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the murder of the accused's mother inside the house they shared. Most relatives and panch witnesses turned hostile; the court relied on medical and FSL evidence, the bloodstained clothes and the accused's failure to explain the death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri.Kumar S/O. Subhas Goundi Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100134/2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. KUMAR S/O. SUBHAS GOUNDI, AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. MAHALINGAPUR, TALUKA MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. D.B.KARIGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY P.S.I., MAHALINGAPUR POLICE STATION, TALUKA MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT, BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, SITTING AT JAMKHNADI IN ITS

¶17

¶18

S.C.NO.49/2015 DATED 30.03.2017 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201 OF IPC AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING , HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The accused is before this Court challenging the order of conviction passed by the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi dated 30.03.2017 in Sessions Case No.49/2015 by way of the said Judgment, the accused has been found guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, as also to make payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(B) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant who is the brother of the accused and son of the

¶23

¶24

deceased was residing at Sameervadi Cross, Mahalingapur in Mudhol taluk, along with his family members. His mother namely Shantawwa Subhas Goundi (deceased) and his elder brother Kumar Subhas Goundi, the accused were staying together. It is alleged that Kumar Subhas Goundi (accused) is addicted to bad vices like drinking, and in his drunken state would pick up quarrels with his mother, though accused had been advised several times by the complainant and his relatives including Shivabasu Goundi (P.W.7) and their community elders, the accused did not heed to it. In view thereof, the complainant along with his wife and children started residing in another place.

¶25

It is alleged that, on 21.01.2015 at about 6.00 a.m., the complainant had gone to get sugarcane with Shivappa B. Mang (P.W.18) and others, while he was cutting the sugarcane, he was informed that his mother had been murdered by his brother with a stone, as

¶26

¶27

such, he along with Shivappa B. Mang came to Mahalingapur, where in the kitchen room, he saw his mother lying on the left side with her head washed with water and a big stone near her, all household materials being thrown here and there and in the bathroom, water mixed with blood had accumulated. The complainant in the complaint had alleged that on enquiry, he came to know that between 9.30 p.m. on 20.01.2015 to 05.30 a.m. on 21.01.2015, the accused had picked up a quarrel with the deceased on account of his marriage not being performed, proper food not being given to him as also on account of the deceased not giving him money towards satisfying his vices. This quarrel eventually led to the accused assaulting the deceased using a stone. Thereafter, with an intention to destroy the evidence the accused had washed the injury on the deceased and also the house with water and later absconded from the place. It is further alleged that, a neighbor Prakash Danawwa Pujeri (P.W.5) had also informed him about hearing a quarrel

¶28

¶29

between the accused and the deceased at 10.30 p.m. on 20.01.2015, but they have not given much importance to the same, since they frequently quarreled. It is on this basis that Crime No.9/2015 was registered by the PSI, Mahalingapur Police Station (P.W.23) on 21.01.2015 and FIR sent to the Court.

¶30

The accused was arrested on 24.01.2015 and produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. The Circle Inspector of Police, Mudhol (P.W.24) upon investigation submitted a charge-sheet on 22.04.2015 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Hence, the Additional JMFC Court, Mudhol had committed the matter to the Sessions Court, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi. After hearing the accused and the prosecution, charges were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶31

Thereafter prosecution examined 24 witnesses from P.W.1 to P.W.24, got marked 33 exhibits from Ex.P.1 to P.33 and 10 material objects at MO-1 to MO-10.

¶32

¶33

Upon completion of evidence, the evidence against the accused was put across to the accused, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has denied all the incriminating materials against him, but has not lead any evidence; arguments of both sides were heard and thereafter, the impugned Judgment came to be passed convicting the accused as aforesaid and order of sentence was passed as aforesaid. It is challenging this order of conviction and sentence that the appellants/accused is before this Court.

¶34

The contention of Sri. D.B.Karigar, appearing for the accused is that, there was no motive for the accused for having committed the murder of his mother, nor the prosecution has been able to establish the intention on his part, there are no eyewitnesses to the crime as alleged against the accused. The circumstantial evidence which has led the trial Court to convict the accused is of a weak nature and not sufficient for the

¶35

¶36

purpose of such conviction, more so, when the offence is under Section 302 of IPC. Almost all the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant as also other independent witnesses have denied the statement given by them to the police, in fact they have also certified that the accused is a good man, of good character and the only persons who have supported the case of the prosecution are the official witnesses whose evidence cannot be taken into consideration, more so, when the complainant and other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. In that background, he submits that the accused ought to have been acquitted of the crimes.

¶37

Per contra, Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. SPP would submit that, the order of conviction and sentence are proper based on the evidence on record. The accused and the deceased were the only persons living in the house, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, the accused has not given any

¶38

¶39

explanation as regards the incident having occurred in the house. Thus, the accused has not satisfied the requirement of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court taking into account the evidence on record, including the scientific evidence and the FSL report, which would establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence has convicted him and as such, there is no requirement of this Court to intercede in the matter, he refers to and relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the Trimukh Maroti

¶40

Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , more particularly at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 has held as under. The same is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

¶41

11. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution the following circumstances are clearly established:

¶42

(i) The marriage of Revata with the appellant Trimukh had taken place about 5-6 years back.

¶43

(ii) The appellant Trimukh used to ply a tempo.

¶44

¶45

(iii) There was a demand of Rs 25,000 by the appellant and his parents from the parents of the deceased. The deceased was being ill-treated and was occasionally not given food on account of the fact that the demand of money had not been met.

¶46

(iv) The deceased had told her parents about the fact that she was being ill-treated and occasionally she was not given food, whenever she visited her parental home and last time on the occasion of Panchami festival. She had also told about the said fact to her neighbour PW 5 Girjabai of Village Kikki.

¶47

(v) After the death of Revata, the appellant and his parents informed some persons in the village as also the family members of the deceased that she had died on account of snakebite.

¶48

(vi) When PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 reached the house of the accused in Village Kikki, they found the body of the deceased in a sitting posture with her back taking support from the wall. PW 14 Devichand, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police also found the body in the same position.

¶49

(vii) The post-mortem examination revealed that Revata had died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of snakebite.

¶50

(viii) Certain recoveries like chappal of the deceased, broken pieces of bangles were made at the pointing out of the appellant. A shoe was also recovered at his pointing out.

¶51

12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be

¶52

¶53

cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.

¶54

8. The decision of the Apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh, reported in

¶55

2014 Cri.L.J. 4047 , more particularly paragraph Nos.16 to 22 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶56

16. Way back in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer2 this Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it is well nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was said:

¶57

"This [Section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could

¶58

¶59

prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not."

¶60

In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra3 this Court held that when the wife is injured in the dwelling home where the husband ordinarily resides, and the husband offers no explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible for the injuries. It was said:

¶61

"Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime."

¶62

Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra4 in which case the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was held that the appellant was under an obligation to give an explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife.

¶63

¶64

19. Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra5 this Court observed that since the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home and the appellant had not set up a case that the offence was committed by somebody else or that there was a possibility of an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.

¶65

In Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh6 this Court observed as follows:

¶66

"It bears repetition that the appellant and the deceased family members were the only occupants of the room and it was therefore incumbent on the appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt."

¶67

More recently, in Gian Chand v. State of Haryana7 a large number of decisions of this Court were referred to and the interpretation given to Section 106 of the Evidence Act in Shambhu Nath Mehra was reiterated. One of the decisions cited in Gian Chand is that of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar? which gives a rather telling example explaining the principle behind Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the following words:

¶68

"During arguments we put a question to learned Senior Counsel for the respondents based on a hypothetical illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of his people and the kidnappers disappeared with the prey, what would be the normal inference if the mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy. Learned Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such a case the inference is reasonably certain that the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless they explain otherwise."

¶69

¶70

22. The law, therefore, is quite well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts.”

¶71

Shri Banakar submits that the conviction is just and proper, based on evidence on record, the Prosecution having proved that the Accused had committed the offence and as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶72

It is in the above background that we are required to reappreciate the evidence on record to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged.

¶73

The complainant though had given his complaint at Ex.P.1, making the aforesaid allegations, the complainant when examined as P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and has denied the habits of the accused upon being informed about the incident

¶74

¶75

he had come to the spot and found his mother lying on her left side and a piece of stone laying near her. On an enquiry he was informed that, no one knew about what had happened and that the police had come and taken photographs of the spot and also his left thumb impression on a complaint, the contents of which were not known to him. It is at this juncture he was treated as hostile and cross-examined. During the crossexamination, he has admitted that the accused was an alcoholic and used to quarrel with his mother frequently and that he was residing separately on account of the actions of the accused. Apart from this, nothing has been elicited during his cross-examination.

¶76

P.W.2 who is also a witness to the inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and clothes seizure panchanama, has denied his presence, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that, the police had called him to the spot. He did not know anything about what has happened or of the

¶77

¶78

objects near the body of the deceased. He was treated as hostile but nothing much was elicited from him during the course of cross examination.

¶79

P.W.3 who is the witness to the inquest as well as spot panchanama as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, has also denied that she knew anything about the incident, she states that the police had asked her to come to the spot and obtained her thumb impression on two documents, the contents of which she did not know, she was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution and nothing much was elicited from her.

¶80

P.W.4 is another panch witness as regards the seizure of the clothes of the deceased and clothes of accused. He states that, the police had obtained his signatures on Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 at the police station, he did not know the contents of the said exhibits; the Public Prosecutor treated him as hostile and cross-examined him, but however, nothing was elicited during such cross-examination.

¶81

¶82

P.W.5 who lives in the neighborhood of the victim and the accused deposed that the accused was a good man. When he went to the spot on the day of the incident, he saw the deceased body there and that he did not know what had happened. He was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing much was elicited from him. He denied giving any statement to the police.

¶83

P.W.6 who is also a resident of the neighborhood deposed that the accused is of good nature and worked as a mason and was living with his mother. When he heard the news, he went to the house and the police were already present, he denied having given any statement to the police. He was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing much was elicited during his cross-examination.

¶84

P.W.7 had deposed that the deceased was his elder brother’s wife and that the accused is the elder brother’s son. He has stated that the accused and the

¶85

¶86

deceased were living together, upon knowing about the incident he visited the spot, but stated that he has not noticed any injuries on the deceased. He has further stated that, he does not know why a complaint was filed against the accused. In that background, he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing much was elicited from him. He also denies having been given any statement to the police.

¶87

P.W.8 has also stated that, the deceased was his brother’s wife and the accused is his brother’s son. Though he has stated that the accused and the deceased were residing together. He has denied having seen the dead body when he visited the spot and also of having given any statement to the police, he was treated hostile and cross-examined, but nothing much was elicited from him.

¶88

P.W.9 is stated to be the cousin of the accused, deposed that when they went to the house of the

¶89

¶90

deceased they noticed her dead body, but has not observed any injuries on the dead body, and that he did not know the reason for the death of the deceased, he denied having given any statement to the police, he was also treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing much was elicited from him, during the course of cross-examination.

¶91

P.W.10 is also stated to be the cousin brother of the accused. He has also stated that, when he went to the spot, he saw people had gathered there, but he has not seen any dead body and he does not know reason for the death of the deceased and has denied giving any statement to the police. He was also treated as hostile and cross-examined by the public prosecutor, but nothing much was elicited from him during the crossexamination.

¶92

P.W.11 has deposed that the deceased was his aunt and that she was residing with the accused. He deposed that the accused had come to his house at

¶93

¶94

about 5.00 a.m. and informed him that the deceased had fallen down and hence, he went along with the accused to the house where he noticed that the deceased was laying on the ground, she was bleeding from her head and saw a stone next to her. He denied any knowledge of what had happened. He denied the knowledge of cause of death as also having given any statement to the police. He was also treated hostile, but nothing much was elicited from him during the cross-examination.

¶95

P.W.12 who is stated to be the brother of the deceased deposed that after coming to know about his sister’s death came to her house and noticed the dead body of his sister, he did not know what had happened. He also denied giving any statement given to the police. Hence, he was treated as hostile and cross-examined, but nothing much was elicited during the crossexamination.

¶96

¶97

P.W.13 has deposed that the deceased was his aunt and admitted that the accused is her son, and that both of them were residing together. When he came to know of the death of the deceased, he came to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body and the wound on the forehead. He states that, he has not enquired the manner in which the deceased has died. He further stated that there was a rumor that the deceased had died as a result of falling in the bathroom. This witness has also been treated hostile and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, nothing much was elicited during the crossexamination.

¶98

P.W.14 has deposed that he was the relative of the deceased. He has stated that after he came to know that deceased had died after falling in the bathroom, he went to the house where he saw the dead body, but he did not enter the house, he does not know the cause of death of the deceased and has not given any

¶99

¶100

statement before the police. He was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecution and nothing much was elicited.

¶101

P.W.15 deposed that the deceased was her mother-in-

¶102

law and the accused is her brother-in-law and the complainant is her husband. She stated that the deceased and the accused were residing together, whereas P.W.15 and her husband were residing in Sameervadi cross. She also stated that, the accused is of good character. She deposed that after hearing the news about the death of the deceased, she went to the house, though the dead body was there, she did not see the dead body and she does not know the cause of death of her mother-in-law and she denied giving any statement to the police. This witness was also treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing much was elicited during the crossexamination.

¶103

¶104

P.W.16 deposed that the deceased was her relative. The deceased and her son were staying in the house belonging to P.W.16. She did not come to the spot at the time of the death of the deceased. It is only after the death, in order to collect the key of the house, she went to the police station, she did not know how the deceased died, she denied giving any statement to the police. She was treated as hostile and nothing much was elicited during the cross-examination.

¶105

P.W.17 has deposed that the deceased and the accused were mother and son. When he came to know that the deceased was dead, he went to the Mahalingapur Police Station, there he was asked if he knows how to write and when he answered in the affirmative, the police asked him to write Ex.P.1 being the complaint. He has stated that he had not gone to the house of the deceased, he had not seen the dead body and he has not given any statement before the police. He was also treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public

¶106

¶107

Prosecutor, but nothing much was elicited during the course of cross-examination.

¶108

P.W.18 has deposed that he is the distant relative of the family, that around 8.00 a.m. on the day of the incident P.W.1’s uncle had called him and informed him about the demise of the deceased. He immediately informed P.W.1 who was working with him and went along with him to the deceased house, and saw her body, P.W.1 had enquired with C.W.7, who was not examined by the prosecution, who had informed them that the accused had beaten her as she was not willing to give him money, and for not getting him married, P.W.18 further deposed that a stone was lying near her dead body and identified it as MO-1, he had accompanied P.W.1 to the police station while lodging complaint. He has also given a statement to the police in consonance with the complaint filed. However, during the course of cross-examination by the accused he denied the knowledge as regards the contents of the

¶109

¶110

statement. Thus, he has only partially supported the case of the prosecution.

¶111

The above being the statements of material witnesses, all the material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶112

P.W.19 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem of the deceased has stated that there were injuries both on the left and the right side of the head. He has further deposed that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and opined that the cause of death was due to cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to injuries to vital organ brain. He has deposed that the following injuries have been caused:

¶113

A. Contusion on the left parietal bone about 4.5 x 4 cm with central cut lacerated wound about 2.5 x 1 cm with underlined parietal bone fracture in line with external wound measuring about 2.5 cm underlining meningesis and parietal lobe of brain are contused measuring 2 x 2 cm.

¶114

B. Contusion around right eye about 10x10 cm.

¶115

C. Contusion of 10x10 cm extended from right frontal prominence to right zygotic prominence, horizontal from bridge of nose to right trigus with central cut lacerated wound about 5x2 cm over right frontal bone.

¶116

¶117

He has deposed that he had conducted postmortem about 15 to 18 hours after the death. He had examined MO-1 the stone which had blood stains on it and has opined that the injuries might have been caused by the use of the MO-1. He has withstood the test of crossexamination, supported the case of the prosecution and denied the suggestions made during the course of cross-examination.

¶118

P.W.20 is the Assistant Executive Engineer who had prepared the sketch of the spot at Ex.P.25. He identified the said Exhibit. He denied all the suggestions put forward by the accused during the course of cross-examination.

¶119

P.W.21 is a Police Constable of Mahalingapur Police Station. He has deposed that upon direction from the PSI, he had carried the complaint and FIR to the Mudhol JMFC Court at 2.30 p.m.

¶120

P.W.22 is the police constable, who had conducted the spot mahazar inquest and prepared the sketch at

¶121

¶122

Exhibits P.6, 7 and 26 respectively. He has stated that he has accompanied P.W.20 the Assistant Executive Engineer to the spot at the time of preparing sketch, he carried the MO-1 stone to the Doctor for obtaining his opinion and submitted the same to the Investigating Officer. He has denied all suggestions put across to him during the course of cross-examination and withstood the test of cross-examination.

¶123

P.W.23 is the PSI of the Mahalingapur Police Station.

¶124

He has deposed that on 21.01.2015 at 11.00 a.m. a complaint was filed by P.W.1 and registered as Crime No.9/2015 in pursuance of which the FIR was forwarded to the Magistrate. He has deposed of conducting an inquest panchanama between 12.30 to 1.30, marked as Ex.P.6, spot panchanama was conducted between 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. i.e., Ex.P.7, rough sketch was prepared at Ex.P.26. Cloth seizure panchanama of the deceased was made in the presence of C.W.2 and C.W.3. He has also obtained the

¶125

¶126

photographs of the spot and sent the body for postmortem. He has stated that MOs. 3 to 6 were seized from the spot in the presence of C.W.2 and C.W.3. He has recorded the statement of C.W.5 to C.W.12, C.W.14 to C.W.18 as per Ex.P.10 to 22 and also recorded the statement of C.W.13 and 19. He had arrested the accused on 24.01.2015 at 4.00 a.m. near Sai Mandir. On enquiry with the accused he has deposed that the accused had admitted his guilt, hence he recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P.28, seized the blood-stained clothes of the accused in the presence of C.W.3 and C.W.4 by drawing a Panchanama as per Ex.P.9. He also identified the clothes of the accused at MOs.7 and 8. He had produced the accused before the Court along with remand application and sent the requisition to the P.W.D for preparing a sketch of the scene of the offence. He has recorded the statement of C.W.27. This witness has also withstood the test of cross-

¶127

¶128

examination and denied all the suggestions made to him.

¶129

P.W.24 is the Investigating Officer, he has deposed that on 26.01.2015 he took up the investigation of the case after verifying investigation already carried out, he recorded the statement of C.W.22, received postmortem report on 10.02.2015 as per Ex.P.23, received the sketch from P.W.D on 17.02.2015 as per Ex.P.25. The house extracts from Purasabha as per at Ex.P.31. he has sent the seizure articles with C.W.21 to FSL, Belagavi for examination under an acknowledgement as per Ex.P.32. On 09.03.2015 he has sent MO-1 for C.W.22 i.e. Medical Officer for his opinion, which opinion is as per Ex.P.24. Pending receipt of the FSL report, he has filed a charge-sheet against the accused. On 12.02.2015 he received FSL report as per Ex.P.33. This witness has also withstood the test of cross-examination and denied all the suggestions put across to him.

¶130

¶131

A perusal of the aforesaid evidence and the exhibits would indicate that the family members except P.W.18 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile and nothing much was elicited from them, during the course of cross-examination. Even though P.W.18 had supported the case of the prosecution during the cross-examination, he has denied the contents of the statements given by him to the police.

¶132

This is a classic case of all the relatives turning hostile and abandoning the deceased to protect her murderer, the accused. Probably under the assumption that nothing can be done about the dead, but a living relative has to be protected. Be that as it may, from the entire evidence of the relatives i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.18 it is clear that the deceased and the accused were residing together in the same house. It is also clear that the death of the deceased took place in the said house, none of the witnesses have deposed as regards

¶133

¶134

the presence of the accused in the house though they have deposed about the body of the deceased being present. Admittedly, the incident occurred in the intervening night of 20.01.2015 and 21.01.2015. The

¶135

last person who was seen in the company of the deceased was the accused in the night, but was not available in the morning. The accused has also not led any evidence or stated anything as regards where he was and or when he left the company of the deceased. The death being homicidal and unnatural is not in dispute.

¶136

The evidence of the Doctor and the forensic examination reports indicates that the deceased had suffered injuries on her head, on both sides. If the arguments of Sri. Karigar, learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted that the deceased fell on her own, injured herself and died on the spot due to the injury, then the injury might have been caused only on one side of the head on which the deceased would

¶137

¶138

have fallen. The fact that there were two grievous injuries on both sides of the head would indicate and establish that the deceased had been assaulted on one side due to the force of which she fell down on the other side, resulting in grievous injuries on both sides of the head. The stone lying near the deceased was also having blood on it.

¶139

The evidence on record indicates that there was an attempt made to wash the place including the head of the deceased and the stone as there was blood which was mixed with water found near the bathroom. This was probably with an intention to remove the blood and the evidence from the scene of occurrence of the crime. If indeed the death was due to an accident, the deceased and the house would not have been washed.

¶140

P.W.11 has stated about the accused having come to his house at 5.00 a.m. and informed about the deceased having fallen down and being unresponsive. There is no explanation given as to what P.W.11 and

¶141

¶142

accused did thereafter. Admittedly, there was no attempt made to either contact the hospital or the police. The first thing that anybody would do in such a situation is to contact a hospital or a Doctor to get medical aid and assistance.

¶143

From the evidence by the official witnesses it is gathered that the blood group of the deceased was ‘O’ positive. After the arrest of the accused, his bloodstained clothes were seized by the Investigating Officer by conducting panchanama. When these clothes were sent for examination to the FSL, the FSL had given a report at Ex.P.33 that M.O.No.7 being the clothes seized from the accused, was stained with blood of ‘O’ positive group which is same as that of the deceased. There is no explanation given by the accused as regards this, when the evidence against him was put across to him while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶144

Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

¶145

¶146

Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge :

¶147

“When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”

¶148

The death of the deceased has occurred in the house in which the deceased and the accused were residing. Thus there is a special knowledge on the part of the accused as regards the events that had occurred in the said house in the intervening night of 20.01.2015 and 21.01.2015, more so when the accused was present in the house on the night of 20.01.2015. Thus, there is a burden which is cast on the accused to explain about the incidents that had occurred in the intervening night of 20.01.2015 and 21.01.2015, the Apex Court in the

¶149

case of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2016 (2) SCC Cri. 436,

¶150

more particularly paragraph No.13 has held as under:

¶151

“ 13. As seen from the evidence, appellant Gajanan and his father Dashrath and mother Mankarnabai were living together. On 7-4-2002, mother of the appellantaccused had gone to another Village Dahigaon. The prosecution has

¶152

¶153

proved presence of the appellant at his home on the night of 7-4-2002. Therefore, the appellant is dutybound to explain as to how the death of his father was caused. When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of the occurrence, when the accused and his father Dashrath were in the house and when the father of the accused was found dead, it was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how his father sustained injuries. When the accused could not offer any explanation as to the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance against the accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime.”

¶154

The incident having occurred in the house where only inmates were the deceased and the accused, special knowledge is deemed to be had by the accused as regards the death of his mother and or the events that occurred in the house which has not been explained by the accused. The accused has simply denied the case of the prosecution and has maintained stoic silence.

¶155

¶156

In the peculiar nature and circumstance of the case, it is only the Investigating Officer and the official witnesses who have performed their duty in order to obtain justice for the deceased Shantawwa. Admittedly, there is no allegation made of any enmity or hostility between the accused and or any of the official witnesses. Therefore, there is no need for nor is any allegation made as regards the official witnesses being inimical towards the accused and or trying to fix the accused.

¶157

In the above circumstances if the evidence is taken into consideration it gives rise to an irrefutable conclusion that the complaint as filed was as regards the true facts which had occurred it being supported by P.W.18; the evidence of P.W.11 indicates that the accused had visited the house of P.W.11 and informed about the deceased having fallen down, despite which no action was taken by the accused, the totality of the circumstances would lead to a irrefutable conclusion

¶158

¶159

that the accused has caused the death of his mother by using a stone which is homicidal in nature and an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶160

In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution having driven home the guilt of the accused, the Judgment of the trial Court is proper, correct and does not require any interference at our hands. Accordingly, we pass the following

¶161

Order

¶162

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶163

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶164

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶165

*Svh/-

Shri.Kumar S/O. Subhas Goundi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri.Kumar S/O. Subhas Goundi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Janardhan Devu Marathi

Mr Nayeem Noor Mohamed Vs Nazim Noor Mohamed

Arunkumar C R Vs Karthik R

Abdulkhadar S/O Abdulgafar Tapal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shakuntala Premanath Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Kamalesh Gajanan Naik