Allowed

Sathisha @ Rangaiah v. State by Koppa Police Station

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024CRL.A/1150/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal challenging a conviction for murder and robbery. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances, particularly regarding the ownership of recovered jewelry and the motive for robbery, thereby acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside; the appellant is acquitted of offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC and set at liberty.

Sathisha @ Rangaiah Vs State by Koppa Police… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1150 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SATHISHA @ RANGAIAH S/O SRI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NAMBINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI K. RAJASHEKAR, AMICUS CURIAE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PRABHU KUMARA NAIKA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE BY KOPPA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., H.C.G.P.)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 05.12.2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, IN S.C. NO.53/2013, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 379 IPC.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, K. S. MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Challenging the order of his conviction and sentence, the accused in S.C. No.53/2013 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, has preferred this appeal.

¶24

The appellant was prosecuted in S.C. No.53/2013 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by Koppa Police in Crime No.82/2012 of their Police Station.

¶25

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

¶27

PWs.1 and 2 are son and husband of the deceasedSharadamma. The accused was residing at Nambinayakanahalli village near the house of Sharadamma. Sharadamma, her husband and her mother-in-law were residing in Nambinayakanahalli village and eking out their livelihood by begging and raring pigs. Her sons including PW1 were residing

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶29

at Bengaluru. On 22.05.2012, PWs.1 and 2 had gone to Maddur to attend a programme. When they returned home, Sharadamma was not found in the house. Thimmamma, the mother of PW2 informed that Sharadamma left the house at 3:30 p.m. to graze the pigs and had not returned home. They searched for her till 9:30 p.m., but she was not traceable. On the next day, when PW3 had gone to his land (grazing area) to pluck the coconut, he found the dead body of Sharadamma in the bushes near Kodihalla and he informed the same to PW1. On going, PW1 along with other people found the victim dead with homicidal injuries and chopper-MO3 was lying at the spot, then PW1 filed complaint as per Ex.P1, based on which, Ex.P28-FIR was registered initially against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. PW15 took up investigation. The investigation revealed that the accused with an intention to rob MO1-ear studs and MO2-nose pin of victim Sharadamma, assaulted with chopper-MO3 on her head, robbed them and sped away.

¶30

The trial Court on hearing the parties framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC. As the accused claimed to be tried, the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶32

trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PW1 to PW18 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P31 and MO1 to MO14 were marked. The accused after his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. filed his defence statement, but did not lead defence evidence.

¶33

The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC. Further, the trial Court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 379 IPC with default sentence. The trial Court held that though the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has established the circumstance that the accused and deceased were last seen together and the circumstance that the jewelry of the deceased were seized from the custody of the accused.

¶34

The accused has challenged the said order of conviction and sentence in the above appeal.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶37

Submissions of Sri K. Rajashekar, Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant:

¶38

That there was no direct witness to the crime. The

¶39

case was based solely on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances set up by the prosecution were not established by cogent and consistent evidence. There was no evidence to show that the accused and the deceased were seen together soon before her death. In the complaint, there is no whisper about the deceased wearing MOs.1 and 2 and they were missing. The recovery of MO1 and MO2 were not proved by satisfactory evidence. Even the prosecution witnesses themselves say that the accused pledged them saying that they were jewelry of his wife. There was nothing to show that MO1 and MO2 were the belongings of the deceased. Though the prosecution says that the scene of offence was discovered at the instance of the accused, again as per the prosecution itself, same was found much before filing of the complaint. Therefore, that cannot be discovery by any stretch of imagination. The impugned judgment and order is based on erroneous appreciation of evidence. Hence, same is liable to be reversed.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶42

Submissions of Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader:

¶43

That the case was based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstance that the accused and the deceased were last seen together and that the belongings of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused were proved by satisfactory evidence. The bloodstained clothes of the accused were recovered at his instance. Said recovery was supported by the evidence of PW10. The accused has not given explanation for he possessing the jewelry of the deceased. The trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence and applicable law has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. Therefore, the said order does not warrant interference of this Court.

¶44

Considering the submissions of both sides and examining the material on record, the point that arises for determination of this Court is:

¶45

Whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable ?

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶48

Analysis

¶49

The relationship between the deceased, PWs.1 and 2 was not disputed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, there was no eyewitness to the incident. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances

¶50

relied on by the prosecution are as follows:-

¶51

i. Death was homicidal one;

¶52

ii. Motive;

¶53

iii. The accused and the deceased were last seen together and soon after that the victim was found dead with homicidal injuries;

¶54

iv. Recovery of robbed articles namely MOs.1 and 2 at the instance of the accused under Ex.P19;

¶55

v. Recovery of bloodstained clothes of the accused namely MOs.13 and 14 under Ex.P17; and

¶56

vi. Evidence of the official witnesses.

¶57

Reg. nature of death:

¶58

To prove that the death was homicidal one, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW17-Doctor, Ex.P29Post-Mortem report and his opinion as per Ex.P30. As per the evidence of PW17 and Ex.P29, the victim had suffered the

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶61

following injuries:-

¶62

1. A lacerated wound of 13 cms x 15 cms x 3 cms over the fronto parietal region on the left side (not clear) muscles fracture frontal and parietal bone with laceration of frontal lobe and parietal lobe of the brain with blood clots.

¶63

2. Another lacerated wound of 7 cms x 15 cms x 2 cms at the fronto parietal region on the left side with (not clear) muscles. Frontal and parietal bone, lacerations of frontal and parietal lobes of the brain with blood clots.

¶64

3. Abrasions of 13 cms x 1 cm at the left mandibular border.

¶65

4. Another abrasion of 9 cms x 1 cms at the right mandibular border.

¶66

PW17 in his evidence deposed that the death was due to injury to both the frontal and parietal lobes of the brain leading to neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock. He further deposed that on requisition of the Investigating Officer, he examined MO3chopper and found that the injuries found on the dead body could be caused by such weapon. In the cross-examination of PW17, the defence counsel himself suggested that the injuries

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶68

stated in the Post-Mortem report could be caused with sharp object and death could be caused when there is assault with force. That goes to show that the accused also did not dispute the death being homicidal one.

¶69

Reg. last seen circumstance:

¶70

According to the prosecution, the accused committed murder of Sharadamma on 22.05.2012 at 4:30 p.m. in Government Gomala land situated at NambinayakanahalliBidarakote Road by assaulting her with chopper-MO3. It is further case of the prosecution that PW5-Tandavacharya sighted the accused and the deceased together near the scene of offence before the victim was found dead. PW5 states that on the date of the incident between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., when he was proceeding to his house, he found Sharadamma grazing pigs near the creek and the accused was also found proceeding near the said creek. He further states that when he enquired the accused, the accused told him that he is going to collect money from Sharadamma. But in his chief-examination itself, he denies the statement given before the Police in that regard as per Ex.P18. The FIR was purportedly registered on

¶71

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶72

23.05.2012 at 1:15 p.m. Statements of the witnesses were purportedly recorded on 24.05.2012.

¶73

PW5 is said to be witness to the mahazar-Ex.P17 under which the bloodstained shirt and pant-MOs.13 and 14 of the accused were seized at his instance. PW5 also belonged to the village of the victim only. He did not support the proceedings of Ex.P17. PW1 in his deposition states that himself and his relatives enquired the neighbours in the village and all of them searched for his mother, but she was not traceable. He says that PW5 informed him about he sighting the accused and the deceased together near the scene of offence. Still the name of PW5 did not find place in the complaint-Ex.P1 or about he joining PW1 and others in searching the victim. PW15-Investigating Officer does not state that PW1 gave any further statement regarding PW5 informing him about he sighting the deceased and the accused together on the date of the incident. CW35-Investigating Officer, who conducted further investigation and filed the charge-sheet, was not examined by the prosecution. Under the circumstance, the trial Court was not justified in relying on the evidence of PW5 to hold that last seen circumstance theory was proved.

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶76

Reg: recovery of robbed articles namely MOs.1 and 2:

¶77

According to the prosecution, the accused committed murder of the victim-Sharadamma to rob her ear studs and nose pin-MOs.1 and 2 and they were seized under the mahazar-Ex.P19 on the basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused on robbing MOs.1 and 2 told his uncle-PW11Muttukumar that he will give money by pledging MOs.1 and 2. Therefore, PW11 took the accused to PW9-Rangamma, his sister-in-law, who was residing in Ganadalu village of Mandya District and in turn, PW9 took the accused and PW11 to PW8Mangalamma and pledged MOs.1 and 2 with Mangalamma and borrowed Rs.5,000/- from her and gave it to PW11. According to the prosecution, the accused and PW11 led the Investigating Officer and panchas to the house of PW9 and in turn, she led to the house of PW8 and at the instance of the accused, PW8 produced MOs.1 and 2 and the same were seized under Ex.P19.

¶78

The accused disputed that MOs.1 and 2 belonged to the deceased. His defence is that they were jewelry of his wife and he pledged them to lend money and to give financial

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶81

assistance to PW11. PWs.6 and 7 were panch witnesses to Ex.P19. Though PW6 in his chief-examination states that the accused led him and PW7 to the house of Rangamma and from there, he led them to the house of Mangalamma and Mangalamma produced MOs.1 and 2 at the instance of the accused and that the accused confessed before him that he robbed those articles by killing someone and pledged them, in the cross-examination he states that, it is the Police who told him that MOs.1 and 2 are the belongings of the person who was murdered. He further states that he does not know anything about the case. Such admission in the crossexamination demolishes the evidence of PW6 that it was the accused who confessed that they were the articles robbed after murdering Sharadamma. PW7 another mahazar witness did not support the proceedings under mahazar Ex.P19. Though he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor on treating him as hostile, nothing worth was elicited to show that PW7 was in anyway interested in the accused, therefore, he turned hostile siding the accused.

¶82

So far as other witness, PW11 states that he was in need of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, he sought the help of the

¶83

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶84

accused and the accused could not arrange the amount. PW11 further states that, he asked the accused to pledge MOs.1 and 2 i.e., his wife's jewelry and collect the money. PW11 further deposes that on such permission of the accused, he handed over MOs.1 and 2 to his sister-in-law-PW9-Rangamma and she got Rs.5,000/- by pledging those jewelry with PW8Mangalamma. The statement of PW11 that MOs.1 and 2 were the jewelry of the wife of the accused was not controverted by the prosecution by treating him as hostile and cross-examining him or clarifying that statement by re-examination. PW11 in his cross-examination by the defence counsel, reiterates that the said jewelry belonged to the wife of the accused and on his request, the accused with the assistance of PW9 pledged them with PW8. His evidence was corroborated by the evidence of PW9. She says that PW11 brought those jewelry requesting to lend Rs.5,000/- on pledge of those articles. She says, she pledged those articles with PW8 and handed over the money to PW11. She also states that the Police told that the accused has robbed those jewelry on murdering Sharadamma. At the instance of the Police, she led them to the house of PW8 and PW8 produced those jewelry and the same were seized under

¶85

14 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶87

mahazar-Ex.P19. In her cross-examination, she states that it was PW11 who had come with the accused and did not enquire anything with the accused. She further states that only on the Police saying that they were the robbed jewelry, she came to know about the same. Till then, she did not know anything about those jewelry. PW8, who allegedly paid Rs.5,000/- on pledging those jewelry, states that it was PW9 who brought them to her and on her request, she paid Rs.5,000/- on pledging of those articles. Though in the chief-examination, she states that she came to know that the accused had killed one woman and robbed those articles, the said statement was only a hearsay. In the cross-examination, she admits that she was told that for some medical emergency, the money is required. Therefore, she lent the money by pledging those articles.

¶88

The evidence of the above witnesses corroborates the

¶89

defence of the accused that those jewelry belonged to his wife and he pledged them with the help of PWs.11 and 9 with PW8 for his financial need. Further, the prosecution was required to prove that they were the jewelry of the deceased-Sharadamma

¶90

and she was wearing them on the date of the incident. FIR-Ex.P28 was registered on 23.05.2012 at 1:15 p.m. As per

¶91

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶92

the prosecution evidence, the dead body was traced on 23.05.2012 at 10:00 a.m. The FIR was delivered to the Court on 23.05.2012 at 8:40 p.m. Such delay in delivering FIR was not explained in the complaint-Ex.P1. Absolutely, there is no whisper about the victim wearing the gold jewelry and that they were missing from her body when the same was traced. According to the prosecution and even as per the accused, the said jewelry were pledged for Rs.5,000/-. In Ex.P1 absolutely, there is no whisper of those properties.

¶93

Even assuming they were worth Rs.5,000/-, then the question is whether the victim is capable of acquiring the properties worth Rs.5,000/-. In the complaint-Ex.P1, PW1 has stated that himself and his brother had migrated to Bengaluru to eke out their livelihood. He further states that his mother i.e., the victim and his paternal grandmother aged 100 years, were staying back in the village and for their livelihood, they were begging and raring two pigs. He further states that it was himself and his younger brother who were paying money to his parents for their expenses whenever they visited the village. Though Ex.P19 states that Investigating Officer got those articles appraised, the said appraiser was not cited as charge-

¶94

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶95

sheet witness nor examined before the Court. If the victim was really wearing those jewelry and they were missing that should have been reflected in Ex.P1. Even that circumstance creates doubt about the victim wearing MOs.1 and 2 and the accused assaulting her for the sake of robbery.

¶96

As per the records, MOs.1 and 2 were submitted to Magistrate under P.F. No.48/2012 and as per those records, MO1 was worth Rs.8,850/- and MO2 was worth Rs.1,150/- in all amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Further, PW1 in his crossexamination states at one breath that he cannot say how many stones were there in the ear studs and nose pin of his mother, and later he says that the ear studs consisted of seven white stones, and nose pin had eight white stones and one red stone. He further states that the Police showed him those articles saying that they are the properties of his mother. PW2-husband of the deceased, in his cross-examination, states that he had not counted how many stones were there in ear studs and nose pin of his wife and the Police showed MOs.1 and 2. Such evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the above circumstances creates doubt about the victim wearing MOs.1 and 2 and the accused robbing them and committing her murder for the

¶97

17 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶99

purpose of robbing the same. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the trial Court was not justified in holding that the circumstance of recovery of MOs.1 and 2 was proved.

¶100

Reg. recovery of bloodstained clothes of the accused namely MOs.13 and 14:

¶101

According to the prosecution, during the incident, the pant and shirt worn by the accused also got stained with blood of the victim. On his arrest, he voluntarily produced the same. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused led PW15Investigating Officer and PWs.5 and 10-panchas to his house and produced MOs.13 and 14-bloodstained shirt and pant and they were seized under Ex.P17. PW5, the alleged mahazar witness, did not support the proceedings under Ex.P17. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to show that mahazar was drawn in his presence and he deliberately turned hostile. PW10 though in the chief-examination deposed that the accused brought MOs.13 and 14 from his house and produced them and they were stained with blood, in cross-examination, he states that he was not summoned by the Police for the mahazar by issuing any notice. He further states that he is not able to give the boundaries of the place where mahazar was drawn. He

¶102

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶103

further states that he cannot state the colour of those clothes. Though PW10, PW15-Investigating Officer and Ex.P17 state that MOs.13 and 14 were stained with blood, the Investigating Officer has not referred those articles to FSL examination despite he referring the clothes of the victim, the weapon of offence and the bloodstained and unstained mud seized at the scene of offence. The Investigating Officer has no explanation for the same. Therefore, seizure of MOs.13 and 14 under Ex.P17 and they being stained with blood becomes doubtful. Therefore, circumstance of recovery of bloodstained clothes of the accused also fails.

¶104

Reg. motive:

¶105

According to the prosecution, the accused committed murder of the victim to rob her valuable jewelry i.e. MOs.1 and 2. In the aforesaid discussions, we have concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish that MOs.1 and 2 belonged to the deceased and she was wearing them. Once that basic fact is not established, the question of the accused committing the murder for the purpose of robbing them loses its foundation. Therefore, the circumstance of motive also fails.

¶106

19 -

¶107

NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶108

It is settled principle of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, to prove the charge, the prosecution is required to establish all the circumstances set up by it with cogent and consistent evidence. The chain of circumstances should be so complete leading to only the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. If there is any break in the chain of circumstance, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the same. In the present case, the circumstances of motive, recovery of robbed articles, clothes of the accused and last seen theory were not proved by cogent and consistent evidence. Without judicious appreciation of the evidence and the applicable law on the point, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused. Therefore, the said judgment and order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following:

¶109

O R D E R

¶110

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶111

ii. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in S.C. No.53/2013 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is hereby set aside.

¶112

iii. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC.

¶113

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:5364-DB CRL.A No. 1150 of 2017

¶114

He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

¶115

iv. MOs.1 and 2 shall be returned to the accused after expiry of the appeal period.

¶116

v. Order of the trial Court with regard to disposal of the properties is maintained.

¶117

vi. The Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri K. Rajashekar, learned Amicus Curiae.

¶118

vii. Registry is requested to disburse honorarium of Rs.15,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae.

¶119

viii. Communicate a copy of this order to the trial Court and the concerned Prison, forthwith.

¶120

Sd/JUDGE

¶121

Sd/JUDGE

¶122

MN/KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Sathisha @ Rangaiah v. State by Koppa Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathisha @ Rangaiah v. State by Koppa Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankara Vs State by Kunigal

Holeyaplara Chandrappa @ Chandrashekar Vs State by Davanagere Rural Police

Krishnappa Vs the State

Sri Abdul Fareed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh Vs State by Channagiri Police

Bhaskara Vs the State of Karnataka