A.S. Pachhapure, J.
1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on a trial held by the Fast Track Court-V, Mysore.
2. Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under:
Lakshmi (P.W. 1) is the wife of the accused and Madashetty (P.W. 2) is her father. Mahadeva (deceased) was the son of Madashetty (P.W. 2) and brother of Lakshmi (P.W. 1), whereas Sunanda (P.W. 7) is the wife of Mahadeva (deceased). Somanna (C.W. 1) is the younger brother of Lakshmi (P.W. 1). The marriage of Lakshmi (P.W. 1) was held with the accused about 8 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they have a female child aged about 7 years. The accused was a drunkard and was not providing food and clothes to his wife and she was harassed by cruel treatment of the accused and therefore, about 3 months earlier to the incident she came to the house of her father Madashetty (P.W. 2) along with the child and was staying in their house. The accused used to come to the house of Madashetty (P.W. 2) i.e., his father-in-law and was insisting them to send his wife. They asked the accused to bring the elders and despite the advise, the accused used to come to their house in an intoxicated condition and used to quarrel with his wife and therefore, Lakshmi (P.W. 1) did not go to the house of the accused.
On 3-6-2000 i.e., on the date of the incident at about 6.00 p.m., when Lakshmi (P.W. 1), her father Madashetty (P.W. 2), mother Chikkaputtamma and Mahadeva (deceased) and Sunanda (P.W. 7), the wife of Mahadeva (deceased) were in the house, the accused came and called his wife Lakshmi (P.W. 1) to accompany him to his place. At that time, the family members asked the accused to bring the elders and even Lakshmi (P.W. 1) told that in case if he comes with elders, she is read to follow him. The accused was angry and stating that he will finish her, took out the knife from the waist and assaulted Lakshmi (P.W. 1) on the abdomen and also on the face. At that time, Mahadeva (deceased) came to the rescue of his sister-Lakshmi (P.W. 1) and the accused quarrelled with him stating that he has not sent his sister to his place and assaulted Mahadeva (deceased) on his right chest with knife. Due to the injuries, Mahadeva (deceased) and Lakshmi (P.W. 1) fell to the ground. The rest of the family members i.e., Madashetty (P.W. 2), Sunanda (P.W. 7), Somanna (C.W. 1) and others shouted for help and as the accused saw the people coming to the house, ran away from the spot with the knife. Immediately, they secured a tempo and took Mahadeva (deceased) and Lakshmi (P.W. 1) to the Government Hospital at Nanjangud and the doctors declared that the injured Mahadeva is dead. In the circumstances, the A.S.I (P.W. 14), in-charge of Nanjangud Rural Police Station received the telephone call from the Government Hospital about the arrival of Mahadeva (deceased) and Lakshmi (P.W. 1), the injured and immediately went to the Government Hospital. Somanna (C.W. 1), who had accompanied the injured and the deceased submitted his written complaint (Ex. P. 12). As Mahadeva was dead by that time P.W. 15 returned to the police station and registered Crime No. 108 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sent the complaint (Ex. P. 12) and FIR (Ex. P. 13) to the Magistrate. Later he went to the Government Hospital again and held the inquest (Ex. P. 2) on the dead body of Mahadeva in the presence of Eshwara (P.W. 5) and others. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. While Lakshmi (P.W. 1) was in the Government Hospital for treatment, he obtained the M.L.C. Report (Ex. P. 8) regarding the treatment. After the post-mortem examination, the clothes on the body of Mahadeva (deceased) were produced and he seized the clothes and articles (M.Os. 2 to 5) in the presence of Eshwara (P.W. 5) and others. He sent to the spot and held the Mahazar (Ex. P. 14) and at that time, he seized unstained and blood-stained soil (M.Os. 6 and 7 respectively) in two plastic boxes. On 4-6-2000 he arrested the accused and as his clothes were blood-stained, he seized the clothes (M.Os 8 and 9) under Mahazar (Ex. P. 15). On interrogation, the accused volunteered to produce the weapon. He recorded the statement of the accused (Ex. P. 16) who led the police and the attesting witnesses (P.W. 12) and others and produced the knife (M.O. 1) from a place at a distance of 75 ft. from the bus stand from a hidden place and he seized it under mahazar (Ex. P. 9). Thereafter, Chaluvaraju, Circle Inspector, (P.W. 13) continued the investigation and as Lakshmi (P.W. 1) was not in the condition to give her statement, went to the Hospital again on 12-6-2000 and recorded her statement. H.C. Vijayakumar, Circle Inspector (P.W. 14) secured the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 4) and the M.L.C. Report (Ex. P. 10) and also sent the knife (M.O. 1) for the opinion of the doctor and secured the opinion (Ex. P. 5). He sent the seized articles for the opinion of forensic experts and also collected the injury certificate (Ex. P. 7) of Lakshmi (P.W. 1). The F.S.L. Report (Ex. P. 11) was obtained and on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.
During the trial, the prosecution led the evidence by examining P.Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to 16 and M.Os. 1 to 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He has taken defence of total denial and has not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material on record convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also further sentenced for other offences and ordered to pay the fine. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the accused has approached this Court in the appeal.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the State Public Prosecutor.
4. The point that arises for our consideration is:
Whether there is any illegality in the judgment and order of the Trial Court in convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 302 of the IPC?
5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that except the interested version of P.Ws 1, 2 and 7, there is no material on record and the evidence of the relatives of Mahadeva (deceased) is not corroborated by any circumstances and that there are many discrepancies in their evidence. Further he submits that the Trial Court was wrong in convicting the appellant. It is also his contention that the evidence led is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
6. The learned State Public Prosecutor submits that Lakshmi (P.W. 1) is the injured witness and other witnesses have also seen the incident. He further submits that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused and there are no grounds to warrant the interference.
7. So far as the homicidal death of Mahadeva (deceased) is concerned, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, the attesting witness to the inquest, post-mortem report (Ex. P. 4), opinion (Ex. P. 5) of the doctor (P.W. 9) who held the autopsy on the dead body of Mahadeva and also other evidence including that of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 15). The perusal of the evidence reveals severe injuries on the body and as could be seen from the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 9), Mahadeva (deceased) had sustained one penetrating injury on the upper part of the right side of the chest measuring 5 x 2 x 10 cms. situate 8 cms. above the right nipple, penetrating chest cavity to a depth of 10 cms. There was another cut wound measuring 4 x 2.5 x 2 cm. on the left thigh and the underlying tissues were cut. The doctor is of the opinion that the injuries are ante-mortem and that the death was 12-24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. On dissection and examination of the dead body of Mahadeva the doctor (P.W. 9) is of the opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage coupled with respiratory failure as a result of injuries to the chest by a sharp edged penetrating weapon. The post-mortem report (Ex. P. 4) contains these injuries and the opinion of the doctor and after M.O. 1 was sent to him he gave his opinion (Ex. P. 5) stating that the injuries sustained by Mahadeva (deceased) could be caused by a weapon like M.O. 1. Except suggesting that the injury cannot be caused by a weapon like M.O. 1, there is nothing in the cross-examination to discard the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 9) and he is definite in saying that the injuries cannot be caused by a fall on a sharp stone if a person fell to the ground in the night hours. The fact that there is 10 cm. depth injury on the right chest and another injury on the thigh and further the fact that these injuries were sustained by the deceased while he was in his house, the other evidence would go to show that Mahadeva (deceased) and injured Lakshmi (P.W. 1) were brought to the hospital for the purpose of treatment and Mahadeva died on the way. Considering the clinching evidence of the doctor (P.W. 9) and the contents of the inquest (Ex. P. 2), we are of the opinion that the death of Mahadeva was homicidal.
8. Though the complaint was filed by Somanna (C.W. 1) i.e., the son of Madashetty (P.W. 2) and as C.W. 1 has died after the incident, he has not been examined by the prosecution. The perusal of the complaint (Ex. P. 12) reveals that he was an eye-witness to the incident and he is none-else than the brother of Lakshmi (P.W. 1) and Mahadeva (deceased) and son of Madashetty (P.W. 2). It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was a drunkard and was abusing and assaulting his wife now and then and having no other way, his wife Lakshmi (P.W. 1) came to the house of her father Madashetty (P.W. 2) and was staying with him along with her female child. The accused was insisting to send his wife to his house and they were asking him to bring the elders, so that the accused could have been advised properly and could have undertaken to look after Lakshmi (P.W. 1) without causing any harassment. The accused never brought the elders and still he used to come to the house of Madashetty (P.W. 2) in an intoxicated condition and was abusing his wife. This fact and the conduct of the accused has been spoken to by his wife Lakshmi (P.W. 1), father-in-law Madashetty (P.W. 2) and Sunanda (P.W. 7) i.e., the wife of the deceased. We do not find any inconsistency or discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses as regards the motive aspect put forth by the prosecution. Though the prosecution examined Siddappaji (P.W. 8), a neighbour, he has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. His statement (Ex. P. 3) before the Police is contradicted during his cross-examination by the prosecution. In the circumstances, the prosecution rests its claim on the evidence of the wife of the accused (P.W. 1), the father-in-law of the accused (P.W. 2) and the wife of the deceased Sunanda (P.W. 7) who are the eye-witnesses to the incident. It is relevant to note that the incident occurred when the accused came to call his wife Lakshmi (P.W. 1). At the first instance he assaulted her with the knife and when Mahadeva (deceased) went to rescue her, the accused assaulted Mahadeva (deceased) with the knife on the chest and thigh and caused the injury. As regards the injuries to P.W. 1, the doctor (P.W. 10) who treated her has issued the injury certificate (Ex. P. 7) and it reveals that she was examined by the doctor on 3-6-2000 at 7.00 p.m. i.e., within one hour of the incident and she has sustained incised wound 1' x 3/4' x 2' on the right hypochondrium medial bones area and split incised wound on the lower lip left side 1' x 1/2' x 1/2' and there was bleeding from both the wounds. She was sent to KR. Hospital for further examination and the doctor has certified that injury No. 1 is grievous and injury No. 2 is simple. When she was examined by the doctor in the KR. Hospital, they found perforating sets injury over the abdomen, right hypochondrium with perforation of greater curator of the stomach. While admitting Lakshmi (P.W. 1) in the hospital, she was accompanied by the village people and it is stated before the doctors at the time of her admission that she sustained severe injury by her husband Shivanna at 6.00 p.m. So, this information is the earliest information and Dr. Jayakumar (P.W. 10) deposes about the nature of the injury and his treatment and has also stated that this injury could be caused by the knife (M.O. 1) and the extract of M.L.C. Register (Exs. P. 6 and 8) also reveal the time of admission, the name of the accused and the treatment of P.W. 1 and the examination of Mahadeva (deceased) by the doctor (P.W. 10). It is he who examined the deceased as well and declared him as dead. So, P.W. 1 is the wife of the accused who had sustained grievous injury in the assault and therefore her evidence assumes more importance than that of any ordinary eye-witnesses. She is definite in her evidence about the arrival of the accused with the knife and assaulting her on her abdomen and face and she has sustained injuries to the lower lip and therefore even the medical evidence is consistent with her evidence of inflicting injuries by the accused. She stated that her brother Mahadeva (deceased) came to save her and at that time the accused assaulted him with the knife. The injuries on Lakshmi (P.W. 1) and Mahadeva (deceased) could be caused by the weapon like the knife (M.O. 1). So also, it is in the evidence of Madashetty (P.W. 2) and Sunanda (P.W. 7) i.e., the wife of Mahadeva (deceased) about the manner in which the accused caused the assault on Lakshmi (P.W. 1) and Mahadeva (deceased). The part played by the accused as stated by these witnesses is consistent, cogent and acceptable. There are no discrepancies of whatsoever type in the evidence of these witnesses. When there is evidence of eye-witnesses, particularly an injured witness, the motive does not play an important role. Any how, we are of the considered opinion that in addition to the proof of the motive, the prosecution is successful in proving the assault of the accused and death of Mahadeva in the assault with the knife and the injury to Lakshmi (P.W. 1) with the intention to cause her death.
9. As regards the first information, it is relevant to note that the incident occurred at 6.00 p.m. and by 7.00 p.m., the injured Lakshmi (P.W. 1) and Mahadeva (deceased) were brought to the hospital, N.C. Gopaiah (P.W. 15), the ASI, was informed on phone and he came to the hospital and recorded the complaint of Somanna (C.W. 11), who is dead and within 2V2 hours after the incident, the complaint came to be registered and the FIR was dispatched. The perusal of the injury certificate and the time mentioned therein, the name of the accused in the MLC register as a person who caused the assault, the registration of the complaint immediately thereafter gives no room for false implication. There was no reason for Lakshmi (P.W. 1), her father Madashetty (P.W. 2), her brother Somanna (C.W. 1) and Sunanda (P.W. 7) wife of Mahadeva (deceased) to unnecessary implicate the accused if he was not the assailant. Taking into consideration, the evidence of these three witnesses, we find that the evidence is clinching and is sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
10. P.Ws. 3 and 11 have been examined to prove the Mahazar (Ex. P. 1) the seizure of the clothes (M.Os. 2 to 5) and there is also evidence of recovery of the knife (M.O. 1) at the instance of the accused. It is relevant to note that on the arrest of the accused and interrogation, the accused led the Police and the attesting witnesses P.W. 12 and others to the place about 75 ft. away from the bus stand and produced knife (M.O. 1), which was seized .under mahazar (Ex. P. 9). It is in the evidence of the eye-witness and injured Lakshmi (P.W. 1) that immediately after the incident the accused ran away with the knife in his hand. As to where the accused threw the weapon was not within the knowledge of the witnesses and the investigating agency and the production of the knife (M.O. 1) corroborates the version of the prosecution. The seized articles were sent to the forensic experts and Ex. P. 11 is the certificate issued, which reveals the presence of the bloodstain on the articles i.e., the clothes on the body of the deceased and also the clothes of the accused. This is also an additional strong circumstance to prove the complicity of the accused in the crime. The scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the accused caused the death of Mahadeva by assault and intended to cause the death of Lakshmi (P.W. 1) and had harassed her all along till the incident. The Trial Court on proper appraisal of the material on record has come to a right conclusion. We do not find any ground to warrant the interference. Hence, we answer the above point in negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
11. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and the sentence of the ILappellant/accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 302 of the IPC are confirmed.