Venkatesh vs State

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.

The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Fast Track Court No. IX, Bangalore dated 5.10.2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 185/2007 is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

The accused was tried and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Sunitha was a married lady; her husband Jayarajan was a car driver; two children were born out of the wedlock; since her husband was staying at Pandavapura town as driver of the car and as the said Jayarajan used to visit the house of deceased Sunitha on weekends, Sunitha and her children were staying with her grandmother; the complainant is the nephew of deceased Sunitha and he was also living in the very house. Deceased Sunitha and accused Venkatesh were working in Caramel bakery situated at Longford Garden, Shanthinagar, Bangalore. The accused developed intimacy towards the deceased and started pressurizing her that she should not talk with any other person; he used to get angry whenever he saw Sunitha talking with other boys either in the bakery or outside and he used to quarrel on the said ground with her; he had even complained regarding this to the complainant(P.W. 2) and grandmother of the deceased. The accused of late started pressurizing her for sexual favour. However, such requests were negatived by the deceased.

On the date of the incident i.e., on 11.11.2006 at about 7.00 a.m. deceased left the house for bringing green vegetables and milk from the shop; within 15 minutes thereafter, one Mr. Rajashekar (C.W. 2) came running to the house of Sunitha and informed the complainant/P.W. 2 that the accused was stabbing Sunitha repeatedly with the help of screwdriver; P.W. 2 immediately rushed to the scene along with the said Rajashekar and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with the screwdriver. On seeing P.W. 2 and Rajashekar, accused ran away from the scene throwing the screwdriver on the spot. Immediately thereafter, the complainant, Rajashekar and P.W. 5 (another eyewitness) shifted the victim to P.D. Hinduja Sindhi Hospital for treatment, wherein the doctor declared her as brought dead.

The first information came to be lodged by P.W. 2 at 8.15 a.m. on 11.11.2006 before Sampangiramnagar police station, which came to be registered in Crime No. 251/2006 by P.W. 17, the Inspector. After completion of investigation P.W. 17 laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 17 witnesses and got marked 24 exhibits and 9 materials objects. On behalf of the defence no witness is examined. The trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record as aforementioned, convicted the accused mainly relying upon the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 5. Other circumstances are also considered while coming to the conclusion by the trial Court.

Sri. Raju, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the convicted accused taking us through the material on record submits that the Court below is not justified in believing the version of P.Ws. 1 and 5; the motive as alleged by the prosecution is not proved; the weapon used for the commission of offence is not a dangerous weapon; the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment and in heat of passion. Thus, according to him, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused, in the alternative, he submits that the accused is liable to be convicted for a lesser offence.

The said submissions are opposed by learned Addl. SPP Sri. Vijaykumar Majage. He has contended that the trial Court is justified in concluding that it is a clear case of murder. He submits that the facts clearly reveal the intention on the part of the accused to commit murder and therefore, the accused is rightly convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

P.W. 1 is the Doctor of P.D. Hinduja Sindhi hospital. He examined the victim and declared her dead. He issued the death memo as per Ex. PI at about 7.30 a.m. The death memo was received at 8.00 a.m. by P.W. 17, the Inspector. Ex. PI, the Death Memo discloses that the death is due to multiple injuries sustained by the victim. P.W. 2 is the eyewitness to the incident in question. He lodged the complaint as per Ex. P2 at about 8.15 a.m. which came to be registered in Crime No. 251/2006. The first information report as per Ex. P14 is received by the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 11.30 a.m. on 11.11.2006. Thus, it is clear that the complaint is lodged without any loss of time, so also, the FIR has reached the jurisdictional Magistrate within three hours of the registration. P.W. 3 is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 4 is the elder brother of the deceased. Both of them have deposed about the relationship between the deceased and the accused. P.W. 5 is the eyewitness to the incident in question. He along with P.W. 1 and Rajashekar shifted the victim to the hospital. P.W. 6 is the witness to the scene of offence mahazar Ex. P3. P.Ws. 7, 9 and 10 are the constables who participated during the course of investigation at different levels. P.W. 8 is the officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory. He has deposed about the report Ex. P6 issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory. The said report discloses that the blood stains were found on screwdriver sent for examination. P.W. 11 has deposed about the circumstance of motive for commission of the offence. P.W. 12 who was supposed to depose about the spot panchanama Ex. P8 under which M.Os. 8 and 9 were seized has turned hostile. P.W. 13, the Doctor has conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued the report as per Ex. P10. He has given his opinion on seeing the screwdriver as per Ex. P11. P.W. 14 is another witness who has deposed about the motive. P.W. 15 is the witness for inquest mahazar Ex. P12. P.W. 16 has deposed about the seizure of clothes of the deceased under panchanama Ex. P13. P.W. 17 is the Inspector of police. He received the complaint and registered the crime and completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

It is not in dispute that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature. The defence also does not fairly dispute the same. Even otherwise, we find from the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 13 and the post mortem report Ex. P10 that the death is homicidal in nature. It is clear from the records, more particularly, from the post mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of multiple penetrating injuries sustained.

The prosecution has mainly relied on the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 5 to bring home guilt against the accused. It has also relied upon the circumstance of motive against the accused for commission of offence. P.W. 2-nephew of the deceased, P.W. 3-mother of the deceased, P.W. 4-elder brother of the deceased, P.W. 11-neighbour of the deceased and P.W. 14-co-worker of the deceased, all have spoken about the motive for commission of the offence. Their evidence collectively shows that accused used to visit the house of the deceased everyday and he used to talk with her; he used to get annoyed whenever the deceased used to talk with other male members in the society; he even used to quarrel with the deceased whenever he saw the deceased talking with other male members either in the bakery or outside; he had even complained to the family members of the deceased including P.Ws. 2 and 3. It is also borne out from the versions of the aforementioned witnesses that accused had started pressurizing the victim for sexual favours. However, such demands were not met by the deceased. Being enraged, the accused took law into his hands and committed the murder of the deceased on the early hours of 11.11.2006 in a public road, by stabbing her with a screwdriver.

We find that the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses relating to the circumstance of motive is consistent, cogent and reliable. There is no reason as to why they should tell falsehood. Even if the accused did not demand sexual favours from the victim, the witnesses have deposed that victim was friendly with the accused and she used to talk with him everyday in her house. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in concluding that the circumstance of motive is proved by the prosecution.

As aforementioned, the case of the prosecution mainly depends upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5, the eyewitnesses. P.W. 2 is none other than the nephew of the deceased. He is the complainant also. He has deposed not only about the motive, but also with regard to the incident in question. His version before the Court reveals that the deceased left the house at about 7.00 a.m. for the purpose of bringing leafy vegetables and milk; within 15 minutes subsequent thereto, his friend Mr. Rajashekar rushed to his house and informed P.W. 2 that Sunitha (deceased) is being stabbed by the accused with screwdriver. Immediately, P.W. 2 went along with the said Rajashekar in front of District Social Welfare office situated at 6th cross and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with screwdriver repeatedly. On seeing P.W. 2 and Rajashekara rushing to the spot, the accused ran away from the scene, by throwing the screwdriver on the spot. Since Sunitha was not able to talk, she was shifted to hospital by P.W. 2, Rajashekar and P.W. 5 wherein she was declared dead.

The evidence of P.W. 2 with regard to complicity of the accused in the crime has remained unimpeached in the cross-examination. Though certain suggestions are made, all such suggestions are denied by these witnesses. Even in the cross-examination, P.W. 2 has reiterated as to how the victim was stabbed by the accused with the screwdriver. There is no much cross-examination by the defence in the matter of the actual incident. We find that the evidence of P.W. 2 is highly reliable and his version fully supports the case of the prosecution as found in the complaint Ex. P2.

Case of the prosecution is further supported by the evidence of P.W. 5, another eyewitness to the incident. P.W. 5 has deposed that while the deceased was going for getting the milk, P.W. 5 was also proceeding at about 7.15 a.m. on 11.11.2006 for getting the milk. At that point of time, accused scolded the victim in filthy language and asked her as to why she is not acceding to his request for having sexual life with him and started stabbing the victim with the screwdriver repeatedly. By that time P.W. 2 and Rajashekar arrived at the scene and on seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene, by throwing the screwdriver on the spot. Thereafter, the victim was shifted to Sindhi hospital for treatment, wherein the Doctor has declared that the patient is brought dead.

Both, P.Ws. 2 and 5, have identified the weapon i.e., the screwdriver (M.O. 1) used for commission of offence. The evidence of P.W. 5 has remained un-controverted. There is no cross-examination by the defence. Be that as it may.

The evidence of P.W. 5 fully supports the case of the prosecution, as well as the evidence of P.W. 2. The evidence of these two witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable. P.W. 5 is an independent witness; he does not have any grouse against the accused. He is not related to any of the parties. His presence on the spot appears to be natural, in as much as, he was also going to get the milk in the morning on the fateful day.

On re-considering the entire material on record, we are of the clear view that the trial Court is justified in believing the versions of P.Ws. 2 and 5 for coming to the conclusion. As aforementioned, their evidence is highly reliable. Absolutely no material is brought on record by the defence so as to discard the evidence of these witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in believing the versions of P.Ws. 2 and 5.

The material on record amply reveals that it was the accused who stabbed the victim repeatedly on her body at about 7 to 7.15 a.m. on the date of the incident, since the victim did not heed to the request of the accused by providing him with sexual favour.

We also do not agree with the submissions made by Sri. Raju, learned Advocate for the defence that the accused may be punished for a lesser offence. The offence committed by the accused does not fall under any of the exceptions to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code. The accused has come to the spot fully prepared i.e., he is armed with screwdriver. Though, prima facie it appears that screwdriver is not a dangerous weapon, the accused has determined to use the screwdriver as the weapon for commission of the murder. The deceased has suffered as many as 15 injuries and major of them were on the chest. The lungs on both sides were ruptured. Penetrating injuries are found on the chest portion. If really the accused had not got the intention of committing murder of the deceased, he would not have ventured to stab the victim with a piercing weapon on the vital portion of the body. It was convenient for the accused to conceal the weapon while he came to the spot. He has come to the spot with full preparation in mind. Accused had known that the victim would come to particular shop for taking milk everyday morning. Thus, he has arrived at the scene finally prepared by hiding the screwdriver and stabbed her on her chest and other portions of the body. Consequently, the victim collapsed on the ground and died on the spot.

All the aforementioned facts would clearly reveal the intention on the part of the accused. It is a preplanned murder. The accused has carried out the offence with a clear intention in his mind to cause death. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused has committed a lesser offence, more particularly, when the offence does not fall within any of the exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, no interference is called for.

Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.