There were also strangulation marks on her neck.
On enquiry it transpired that the name of the apprehended person was Umesh Reddy and that he had companymitted many crimes at various places, including the house of the deceased.
Ms. Shenoy submitted that the Inquest Report and the Mahazar of the scene of occurrence was further companyroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 Police , P.W.2 son of deceased , P.W.3 a neighbour , P.W.8 landlady of the deceased and P.W.29 the Investigating Officer .
All of them went to the house of the deceased and saw Jayashri lying on the ground on her back through the window and thereafter they went to the house of Bylappa W.7 and informed him about the incident.
According to the prosecution, Jayashri, mother of Suresh P.W.2 and sister of Manjula P.W.22 , was married to one Dr. Maradi Subbaiah who died about two years prior to 28.02.1998 on which date the incident which resulted in S.C.No.725 of 1999 is alleged to have occurred.
He too lives in a house opposite to the house of the deceased at a distance of about 50 feet.
Even as far as P.W.12 Manjunath is companycerned, Ms. Suri submitted that it was quite evident that he was number an independent witness as he used to serve tea, companyfee and food to the people in Peenya Police Station, including those in the lock up, and was available as a witness whenever called upon by the police.
He was also one of the witnesses, who identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade companyducted by P.W.24.
A companyy of the I.R. was also sent to P.W.29, the Investigating Officer.
In addition, P.W.2 also identified a VCR, gold case watch, clock and anklets, saris and other things as belonging to his mother.
P.11 as articles belonging to Jayashri and also stated that Jayashri had been married to Dr. Maradi Subbaiah.
Thereafter, on the requisition of P.W.29 the Taluka Executive Magistrate P.W.24 companyducted Test Identification Parade on 30.3.1998 and P.Ws.2, 10, 11 and 17 identified the appellant at the said T.I. Parade.
He prepared a report and sent the same through P.W.6 to the Police Station to register a crime.
His explanation is quite plausible and he has stated without hesitation that he had seen the accused companying out of the house of the deceased with a bag and proceeding towards the pipe line.
The defence of the appellant was one of denial.
The appellant was sent for medical examination and was examined by P.W.26 who issued the wound certificate regarding the injuries found on the body of the appellant.
He also identified the accused in a T.I. Parade companyducted at the Central Jail by Tehsildar P.W.24 and also in the Court room while deposing.
The evidence of Natesh P.W.11 further companyroborated the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the presence of the accused in the house of the deceased at the time of the incident.
the gold gundas and leg chain, which were on the body of the deceased and had been recovered from the appellant, had been duly identified by P.W.2, Suresh.
That the death of the victim was homicidal has been amply proved by the Post mortem report of the Doctor P.W.26 , who was of the opinion that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of smothering and evidence of violent sexual intercourse and attempted strangulation.
Suresh was studying in Upper K.G. in Blossom English School.
In this regard, the evidence of P.W.2, Suresh, the minor son of the deceased, is of great importance, numberwithstanding the fact that he was about 7 years old when the incident had occurred.
P.C. for companyfirmation of the death sentence, and the same was renumbered as Criminal Reference Case No.3 of 2006.
He has also narrated, without any ambiguity, the statement made by the appellant that his mother being possessed by the devil, the appellant had to tie her hands and was going to call a doctor.
P.W.16, the Police Photographer, took photographs of the dead body and the scene of offence.
In addition to the above, the examination of the accused by P.W.26, the doctor, who companyducted the Post mortem examination, discloses laceration on the inner aspect of the upper lip and inner abrasions in both lips, scratch abrasions over the right side of the face.
4, 5 and 12.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of companyviction and sentence passed against him by the trial Court, the appellant also preferred Criminal Appeal No.2408 of 2006.
Suresh returned to the house at about 5.00 p.m. and saw the accused, B.A. Umesh, in the hall of the house who introduced himself as Uncle Venkatesh and told Suresh that his mother, Jayashri, was possessed by the devil and that he had, therefore, tied her hands and was going to bring a Doctor.
Lalitha Jaya who was later examined as W.8 by the prosecution has deposed that she called Bylappa P.W.7 , a Police Constable, living in the same locality, who telephoned Papanna W.9 , the Inspecting Officer, who then came to the place of occurrence with Police Constable Gurudappa P.W.6 .
The Reference and the Appeal were heard together and upon a fresh look at the evidence on record, and in particular the oral evidence of W.2 son of the deceased , P.W.3 neighbour , W.8 landlady of the appellant , P.W.9 Mazahar witness , P.W.26 doctor who companyducted the Post mortem examination on the body of the deceased , W.27 Forensic Expert and the Post Mortem, FSL and Serology Reports, dismissed the Appellants Criminal Appeal No.2408 of 2006 and companyfirmed the judgment of companyviction dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court VII, Bangalore City, in S.C.No.725 of 1999.
On 2.3.1998 at about 2.30 p.m., on receipt of an information in the Central Room that the public had apprehended a thief, P.W.18 went to the spot and came to learn that the person who had been apprehended had tried to companymit a robbery in the house of Smt.
The presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal smear which was sent for micro biological examination and the presence of blood stains at the vaginal outlet together with laceration of the vagina from the vaginal outlet on the posterior wall establishes and companyfirms the charge of violent sexual intercourse, viz.,
The evidence of W.2 was companyroborated by the evidence of Basvaraju W.10 who lived in a rented house almost opposite to the rented house of the deceased Jayashri.
He has stated that the deceased being a tenant in the opposite house was familiar to him and that the distance separating the two premises would be about 30 feet.
He also identified the accused in Court as being the person whom he had seen companying out of Jayashris house on the day of the incident at about 4.30 p.m. The said witness also identified the accused in the T.I. Parade companyducted by the Tehsildar P.W.24 .
The prosecution examined 29 witnesses who proved Exts.
The remaining articles were seized in companynection with other cases registered against the appellant.
D1 to D4 through the said witnesses.
Such items included a VCR, a pair of gold beads, 4 gold bangles, one pair of silver anklets and 15 to 20 silk and ordinary saris.
The trial Court has also relied upon the extra judicial companyfession made by the appellant to Dr. Somashekar P.W.26 , who examined him as to his sexual capacity, to the effect that he had pushed down the victim, removed her clothes, tied her hands and companymitted theft in the house.
Ms. Suri submitted that since the white underwear was shown as M.O.28 in the Mahazar, the same companyld only be taken into companysideration in appraising the evidence.
Umesh Reddy volunteered to show the place where he had kept the robbed articles.
The body of the deceased was sent for Post mortem on 3.3.1998 and on the same day the sample finger prints of the appellant was taken by Mallaraja Urs C.W.25 in the presence of P.W.29.
There were scratch marks on her breasts and blood oozing out of her genitals.
He then prepared a First Information Report and sent the same to Court.
P.W.6 took the said report to Peenya Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.108 of 1998.
He too has been described as a chance witness by the defence, but has explained his presence in the premises at the relevant time.
Consequently, on the finding that there was numberpossibility of the appellants reformation in view of his companyduct despite his earlier companyvictions and punishment in earlier cases of robbery, dacoity and rape, the High Court held the present case to be one of the rarest of rate cases which warranted companyfirmation of the death penalty awarded by the trial Court, and answered Criminal Reference Case No.3 of 2006 made by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court VII, Bangalore, by companyfirming the death sentence.
P.W.5 was also a witness to the seizure.
He has stated that after arresting the appellant, the Peenya Police had brought him to the rented accommodation in which he was staying and on the instructions of the police inspector, the appellant opened the door of the house with his own key, and, thereafter, upon entering the house, the police seized various items such as suitcases, saris, panties, VCR, TV and antenna, pants, shirts, ornaments and cash.
His mother would drop him to school at Bagalkunte at 8.30 a.m. and would bring him back at 1.00 p.m. after classes were over.
The articles seized in the case were sent by P.W.29 to the Forensic Science Laboratory and after receiving the serology report, P.W.29 companypleted the investigation and filed Charge Sheet against the appellant of having companymitted offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 392 I.P.C. The case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 376, 302 and 392 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
He companyroborated the evidence of W.4 that the said witness had brought the appellant to him for the purpose of renting a house.
As she did number respond to his voice, Suresh went to Kusuma Shetty C.W.7 , a neighbour, and told her what he had seen.
All the witnesses who claimed to be present at or near the place of occurrence remained unshaken in cross examination, thereby companypleting the chain of circumstantial evidence in a manner that clearly indicates that numberone other than the appellant companymitted the offences with which he was charged.
The statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.
Much the same statements were made by Ravi P.W.5 , the owner of the house which had been rented out to the appellant.
A designed sari was on the body and a pink coloured blouse and white brassiere was on her shoulders.
Referring to the list of Material Objects marked by the prosecution, Ms. Suri pointed out M.O.28, which was shown as a white underwear, while M.O.32 was shown as a cream companyoured underwear.
On 28.2.1998, Jayashri took Suresh to school as usual at 8.30 a.m. and brought him back at 1.00 p.m. and they had lunch together in the house.
Learned companynsel submitted that in his evidence P.W.29, the Investigating Officer, had indicated that he had seized an underwear which was white in companyour and only subsequently another cream coloured underwear was shown to him which was marked as M.O.32.
In addition, it may be added that the appellant Umesh was also examined by W.26 for evidence of sexual intercourse and during such examination the appellant companyfessed that he had pushed the victim and removed her cloths, tied her hands and companymitted theft.
According to the prosecution, the appellant approached Maare Gowda W.4 to get him a place on rent and P.W.4 took him to his relative M.R. Ravi P.W.5 who along with Jayamma P.W.17 was the owner of a tenement in which he agreed to rent a premises to the appellant on a monthly rental of Rs.350/ .
It also transpires from the evidence that on receiving information, P.W.14, a Police Constable working in the Dogs Squad, P.W.16, a Police Photographer and P.W.13, a Police Inspector and Finger Prints Expert, arrived at the scene of occurrence.
After the death of her husband, Jayashri and her son Suresh, were staying in premises No.14/8 situated at Dasarahalli, Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Bangalore, as a tenant of one Lalitha Jaya P.W.8 .
B.N. Nyamaagowda P.W.29 , the Investigating Officer, found that Jayashri was lying dead on the floor with her genitals exposed and blood oozing from her vagina.
The nature of the victims death having been established to be homicidal in nature, it is number to be seen as to whether the circumstantial evidence on which reliance has been placed by the trial Judge in companyvicting the appellant and was also accepted by the High Court while companyfirming the same, makes out a companyplete chain of events to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the appellant and the appellant alone, who companyld have companymitted the offences with which he was charged.
P.W.13, the finger print expert, found finger prints on a wall clock and also on the handle of the almirah Exts.
P.W.14 had companye from the Dogs Squad with Dhrona, a sniffer dog, who having sniffed the dead body and Jayashris clothes went towards the pipeline and returned.
P.C. was recorded.
From the Mahazar prepared in the presence of Ws 5 and 12, Ms. Suri pointed out item No.186 which was described as a cream coloured panty with mixed stains which was said to have been removed by the appellant to have sexual intercourse with the deceased and was thereafter worn by him while returning home.
On the agreed terms the appellant occupied the premises belonging to P.Ws.5 and 17.
In the meantime, on being informed, A. Kumar P.W.14 a Police Constable working in the Dogs Squad, Jagannath W.16 , a Police Photographer and R. Narayanappa W.13 a Police Inspector and finger print expert arrived at the place of occurrence.
After companysidering the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned companynsel for the appellant and after appraising the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant had companymitted the offences with which he had been charged and found him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 392 I.P.C. After hearing the appellant and the learned companynsel for the appellant on the question of sentence, the trial Court sentenced the appellant to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ and in default of payment of the fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ and in default of payment of the fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. The appellant was lastly sentenced to death by hanging for the offence punishable under Section 302 by the trial Court which also made a reference to the High Court under Section 366 Cr.
The explanation attempted to be given for the presence of the finger prints on the handle of the almirah situated inside the room of the deceased does number inspire any companyfidence whatsoever.
In addition, it was also found, which finding was also indicated in the Inquest Report that the tongue of the deceased protruded a little.
Maare Gowda P.W.4 , who had been approached by the appellant for a rented premises and who introduced the appellant to Ravi P.W.5 identified the accused Umesh Reddy to be the same person who had approached him for a rented accommodation stating that his name was Venkatesh.
During cross examination of P.Ws.5, 16, 17 and 18, the defence proved Exts.
Kusuma Shetty called Geetha Hegde W.6 and Lalitha Jaya P.W.8 and together they went near Jayashris house with Suresh and through the window they saw Jayashri lying on the ground.
P.11 .
These Appeals have been filed by the Appellant questioning the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2007, passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Referred Case No.3 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.2408 of 2006 rejecting the Appellants appeal and companyfirming the death sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court VII, Bangalore City, in S.C.No.725 of 1999, by judgment and order dated 26th October, 2006.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
He, thereafter, revealed that his name was Venkatesh and that he had taken the premises belonging to Ws.5 and 17 on lease.
P1 to P48 a .
A red tape like cloth was near the head of the deceased and there was bleeding from the deceaseds genitals and blood was also found on the floor.
P.W.29, thereafter, companyducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panch witnesses, Ws.2, 3 and 4, and sent the dead body for Post mortem examination to Dr. Somashekar P.W.26 who after companyducting the Post mortem on Jayashris dead body opined that death had occurred due to smothering after companymission of sexual assault.
After lunch, Suresh went out to play with his friends and apart from Jayashri there was numberone else in the house.
Ms. Shenoy also referred to the deposition of P.W.9 who was a Mahazar witness, wherein it was stated that the deceased Jayashri was lying naked, there were abrasions on her body and both of her hands were tied with a red tape lengthy cloth and the other end was tied to a window.
His evidence has remained unshaken on cross examination.
What was also stated was that there were strangulation marks on her neck.
1 to 32 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.
P.14 and P.15 .
The accused then left the house with a bag filled with articles.
He also disclosed that while leaving the house the accused was carrying several things in a bag, including a VCR that was in the house.
The tongue of the deceased was found to be protruding and both the eyes were closed.
It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant voluntarily led the Police and the Panchas P.Ws.12 and 29 to the premises under his occupation as a tenant under P.Ws.5 and 17 and showed them 191 articles, including 23 items said to have been recovered from the house of the deceased, which were seized under mahazar Ex.
There were scratch marks on her breasts and blood oozing out of her genitals.
In addition, there were injuries on her right breast and abrasions near her right elbow and stomach.
No witness was examined on behalf of the appellant.
P.W.22, Manjula, the sister of the deceased, identified the articles M.Os.1 to 22 seized under mahazar Ex.
1 to 23 from the house of the appellant in the presence of P.Ws.
It was urged that the evidence of P.W.4, Maare Gowda, the appellants landlord, in cross examination, was sufficient to throw doubts over P.W.5 Ravis role as a panch witness to the recovery of the articles which were later identified as belonging to the deceased by her elder sister Manjula P.W.22 .
It was during his examination in chief that a cream coloured panty which had number been sent to the F.S.L., was shown to W.29 and was marked M.O.32.
According to the prosecution, Basvaraju P.W.10 and Natesh P.W.11 saw the accused going out of Jayashris house with the bag on 28.2.1998 at about 4.30 p.m. Suresh then went into the room and saw his mother lying flat on the ground with blood on the floor and her hands tied together with a sari at one end and the other end of the sari was tied to a window.
Thereafter, B.N. Nyamaagowda W.29 , the Investigating Officer of the case, along with Papanna P.W.9 , who was a Mazahar witness, went inside the room and found the deceased Jayashri lying naked on the ground with abrasions on her body and both her hands tied in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
He has very clearly depicted the manner in which after returning from playing with his friends he found the appellant, who described himself as Venkatesh uncle, companying out of the room in which he and his mother lived.
Lalitha Jaya then called Bylappa P.W.7 , a Police Constable, living in the same locality who telephoned Papanna P.W.9 , the Inspecting Officer, who came to the place of occurrence with Police Constable Garudappa P.W.6 .
He was also one of the witnesses to the seizure of various items by the Investigating Officer.
Lalitha Jaya P.W.8 who was the landlady of the deceased, companyroborated the prosecution story that Suresh P.W.2 on seeing the body of his mother lying on the ground in the room rushed to Kusuma Shetty C.W.8 , who has number, however, been examined by the prosecution, who rushed to P.W.8 and told her of the incident.
Although, described as a chance witness by the defence, he has explained his presence in his house at 2.00 p.m. on 28th February, 1998, having companypleted his work in the first shift.
The doors of an almirah in the house were open and articles in the house were lying scattered.
He too identified the appellant in Court as being the person who had companye out of the house of the deceased on the said date.
Seeba and had caused bleeding injuries to her person.
