Sri Mutturaj vs The State Of Karnataka

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD)

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.08.2023 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal, in S.C.No.5041/2022, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Heard Sri.M R Krishnappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP-II along with Smt. Sowmaya, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the entire material available on record.

The first informant-PW.1, father of the deceased, lodged a complaint dated 28.11.2021 at Ex.P1 stating that his daughter had married the accused about eight years prior to the incident. The deceased was working at Jockey Garments, while the accused was working as a helper. Both were residing in a rented house belonging to PW.4-Venkatesh at Kachanayakanahalli Village. They had no children. The accused was allegedly suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, resulting in frequent quarrels between them.

It is further stated in the complaint that on the morning of 28.11.2021, PW.1 received a telephone call from PW.2-Smt. Leela, who informed him that the deceased had called her on the afternoon of 27.11.2021 and complained that the accused was harassing her and had threatened to kill her. Accordingly, PWs.2 and 3 visited their house and PW.2–Smt. Leela advised the deceased and the accused to resolve their differences and live amicably. PWs.2 and 3 stayed at their house that night. While the deceased and the accused slept in their room, PWs.2 and 3 slept in the hall.

At about 2.00 a.m. on 28.11.2021, PW.2 allegedly heard the deceased screaming and immediately rushed to the room, where she noticed blood oozing from the neck of the deceased. On hearing the screams, PW.4 and the neighbours also rushed to the spot, and the deceased was shifted to the hospital in an ambulance for treatment.

PW.1 alleged that the accused, suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, had assaulted her on the neck with a knife, causing bleeding injuries. Accordingly, PW.1 requested the police to take appropriate action against the accused.

The police after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused, subsequently, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The charge framed against the accused is that on 28.11.2021 at about 2.00 a.m., at House No.18, 3rd Floor, Venkatesh Building, Kachanayakanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, he, suspecting the fidelity of his wife, Smt. Malarani, took her into the bathroom and stabbed her nine times on the neck with a knife, causing grievous injuries. Subsequently, she succumbed to the said injuries on 06.01.2022 while undergoing treatment at Premier Sanjeevini Hospital. Accordingly, the accused was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6, marked ten documents as Exs.P1 to P10 and produced four material objects marked as MO.1 to MO.4.

The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, Ex.P2-Spot Mahazar-cum-Seizure Mahazar, the evidence of PW.5 regarding the recovery of MOs.1 to 4, Ex.P7-Death Memo and Ex.P4-Post-mortem Report, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstances relating to motive, the last-seen theory and the cause of death. The learned Trial Court further held that the injuries recorded in Ex.P4 were connected with MO.3 and that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence charged against him.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that:

Per contra, Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned SPP-II appearing for the respondent-State, submitted as follows:

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for both parties, the following point arises for our consideration:

The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6, marked Exs.P1 to P10 and produced MOs.1 to 8. Ex.P3 is the inquest mahazar, which discloses the presence of as many as 9 injuries on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem report further reveals that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries, which resulted in her death. Thus, the medical evidence on record establishes that the death of the deceased was attributable to the multiple injuries sustained by her and was homicidal in nature.

PW.1 is the complainant who furnished the first information. He has deposed that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of his daughter and was subjecting her to harassment. He has further stated that PW.2 had telephonically informed him about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased and that the accused had threatened to kill the deceased. According to PW.2, PW.3 had also informed him that she had visited their house, pacified the accused and the deceased and advised them to lead a harmonious marital life. On 27.11.2021, they visited the house of the deceased, pacified the accused and the deceased and thereafter stayed overnight at the said house. At about 1.30 a.m., the accused went out of the house and subsequently returned. Thereafter, he called the deceased into his room. Upon hearing the screams of the deceased, PW.2 rushed to the room and witnessed the accused stabbing the deceased on her neck, a vital part of the body. The accused thereafter allegedly dragged the deceased into the bathroom. On hearing the screams, PW.4, the owner of the house, along with others, rushed to the spot and opened the door. They proceeded to the bathroom, where they found the deceased bleeding from her neck. The deceased was thereafter shifted to Sparsh Hospital, where she underwent treatment for nine days before succumbing to her injuries.

PW.2- Leela has deposed that PW.1 is her brother-in-law and PW.3-Kum. Meghana, is her daughter. She has stated that on 27.11.2021, the accused called her and informed her that he was unable to find his wife, the deceased. PW.2 advised the accused to check whether the deceased was at the garment factory where she was employed. Accordingly, the accused went to the factory, found the deceased there and subsequently informed PW.2 that he was taking the deceased to the park. PW.2 has further testified that on the same day, at about 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., the deceased called her and informed her that the accused was harassing her extensively and requested her to come home. Upon receiving the call, PW.2, along with PW.3, went to the house of the deceased at Anekal, where PW.3 noticed that the face of the deceased was swollen and her eyes were watery. The deceased subsequently informed PW.2 that the accused had taken her from the garment factory to the park and assaulted her there. PW.2 has stated that she spoke to the accused on the same day and advised him not to assault the deceased, explaining that the deceased was not being unfaithful to him or doing anything to deceive him. The accused apologized to PW.2 and assured her that he would not assault the deceased again. PW.2 has further deposed that later that night, she, PW.3 and the deceased slept in the hall of the house, while the accused slept in a separate room. At about 1:30 a.m., the accused went out of the house and returned thereafter, whereupon he called the deceased and asked her to come and sleep with him in the bedroom. Accordingly, the deceased went into the bedroom. Shortly thereafter, PW.2 heard the deceased screaming from inside the room and, upon entering it, witnessed the accused holding the deceased by her hair and stabbing her on the neck with a knife. PW.2 immediately raised an alarm and called for help. PW.2 has testified that, upon hearing the commotion, PW.4, Venkatesh, the landlord of the house, came to the spot. By then, the accused had locked the bedroom door from inside and had dragged the deceased into the bathroom. PW.4 opened the bedroom door using an extra key and proceeded to the bathroom door, where he knocked and asked the accused to open it. The accused opened the bathroom door but attempted to flee, whereupon PW.4 caught hold of him and prevented him from escaping. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Sparsh Hospital for treatment.

PW.3 has also stated that there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused. She had stated that on 27.11.2021, at about 1.00 a.m., she noticed that the accused had come back to the house, locked the door with a key and called the accused to come to her room and after sometime, she heard the scream of deceased and rushed to the room, that the accused was holding the hair of the deceased and stabbing the deceased on her neck causing injuries and on hearing the scream PW.4-owner also rushed to the house and thereafter deceased was shifted to the hospital. She was treated for 9 days and then succumbed to the injuries sustained.

PW.4 is the owner of the house staying in the first floor of the building wherein deceased and the accused were residing. On 27.11.2021 he heard the screaming of the woman and when he opened the door, ladies came out and informed that the accused had killed the deceased. Accused was inside the room and he entered the room and accused informed that he had finished her. He and others had secured ambulance and the deceased was shifted to Sparsh Hospital and the deceased was admitted to the Hospital and died after 9 days. It is elicited in the cross examination that PW.4, accused and others shifted the deceased to the hospital.

PW.5 is an inquest witness, who has stated that the deceased and accused were married 8 years back and both of them were initially leading cordial life for 3 years and thereafter the accused was suspecting her character. He has deposed that he saw the dead body in the Mortuary of Victoria Hospital and observed stab injuries over the neck of the deceased at the time of conducting inquest. Ex.P2 is the Inquest Mahazar.

PW.6 is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed that he received the first information from PW.1, the complainant, conducted the investigation and collected MOs.1 to 8, including MO.5-bucket. He has further stated that the accused furnished a voluntary statement during the course of investigation. PW.6 has further deposed that on 06.12.2021, he received the death memo from Sanjeevini Hospital and forwarded a requisition for invoking Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. On 07.12.2021, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Victoria Hospital. He thereafter recorded the further statements of CWs.2 to 7 and 19 and conducted the inquest mahazar at Ex.P3. On the same day, he received the FSL Report at Ex.P4. PW.6 has also stated that on 09.12.2021, a mahazar was conducted through CW.23 in respect of MOs.1 to 8. He has further deposed that the said material objects were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory through Police Constable Chandrashekara. Ex.P8 is the acknowledgment evidencing receipt of the material objects by the laboratory, and Ex.P9 is the subsequent forensic examination report.

The decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in M. Iruthayasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, rendered in Crl.A.(MD) No.105/2019, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, is distinguishable on facts and has no application to the present case. The said decision arose out of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and involved an issue concerning the issuance of a wound certificate. The issue arising for consideration in the present case is materially different. Therefore, the aforesaid decision does not advance the case of the appellant.

The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 lends support to the case of the prosecution, as they have spoken to the incident that occurred on 27.11.2021. The minor discrepancies, if any, in their testimonies do not, by themselves, render their evidence unreliable or fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is well settled that it is not the quantity of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence that matters. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajai alias Ajju and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 127, wherein, at paragraph 21, the Apex Court held that the non-examination of certain witnesses had no material bearing on the prosecution case, reiterating that the prosecution is required to adduce such evidence as is necessary to establish the charge and that the quality, rather than the quantity, of witnesses is material. Applying the aforesaid principle, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 must be assessed on its intrinsic worth and credibility, rather than on the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution. In the present case, evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are consistent and have proved the prosecution case.

It is well settled that defective or faulty investigation, by itself, will not enure to the benefit of the accused. The Court is required to independently evaluate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, including the testimony of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, notwithstanding any lapses in the course of investigation. In this regard, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan and Others v. State of Kerala, (2025) 3 SCC 273, wherein, at paragraph 22, the Apex Court reiterated that the benefit of defective investigation cannot be extended to the accused on that ground alone and that the Court must examine the remaining evidence on record to determine whether the prosecution has established its case. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who have spoken to the incident dated 27.11.2021, must be assessed on its own merits, along with the other evidence on record, notwithstanding any alleged lapses in the investigation. Further, there is corroboration of evidence of other witnesses also.

The prosecution has established that shortly before the commission of the offence, the accused and the deceased were together in their dwelling house. However, the accused has not offered any explanation as to how his wife sustained the injuries which resulted in her death. This constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance against the accused. The circumstances surrounding the occurrence being within his special knowledge, the accused was expected to offer a plausible explanation regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mere denial of the prosecution case, coupled with the absence of any explanation regarding the circumstances in which the deceased sustained the injuries, assumes significance in the light of the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the present case, the accused has failed to offer any explanation as to how the deceased sustained the injuries. Though it has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW.4 that the accused and others shifted the deceased to the hospital, the said circumstance, by itself, does not constitute a material discrepancy so as to discredit the prosecution case or render its evidence unreliable.

The motive attributed to the accused in the present case stands established through the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5. Mere omissions or minor inconsistencies in their testimonies do not, by themselves, render the prosecution case unreliable. The prosecution has adduced evidence establishing the circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the offence.

The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 discloses that the accused was harassing the deceased and had assaulted her on the day of the incident. Both witnesses have further deposed that there were frequent disputes between the accused and the deceased on account of the accused suspecting her fidelity. PW.2 has specifically stated that on the incident, she intervened in the quarrel between the accused and the deceased, attempted to pacify them and advised the accused not to assault the deceased thereafter.

The Postmortem Report -Ex.P4 and Ex.P9-FSL report were marked through the PW.6-Investigating Officer.

Ex.P9-FSL Report was issued by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru. The mere non-examination of the officer who issued the said report is not fatal to the prosecution case, provided the report falls within the ambit of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). In this regard, Section 293 Cr.P.C., which permits certain reports of Government scientific experts to be used as evidence without examining their authors, is relevant and reads as under:

The PM Report-Ex.P4 was marked through the IO, the said PM report is issued by the Government doctor while discharging official duty and the same cannot be doubted unless there is challenge to the veracity of the same.

In this regard, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Akhtar and Others v. State of Uttaranchal, (2009)13 SCC 722, wherein, at paragraph 21, it has been held as follows:

Further, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Boraiah alias Shekar v State by Ramanagaram Police, reported in 2002 Cri LJ 1031, wherein, at paragraph 13-A this Court held as follows:

The mere delay in obtaining the FSL report, by itself, is not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the other oral and documentary evidence on record sufficiently corroborates the prosecution case and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Upon reappreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and assigned cogent and valid reasons for recording the conviction of the accused. We find no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following:

The appeal is dismissed.