Both the accused were found under a company in the bed room of Ramesh at about 1 or 1.45 a.m. when the neighbors of the said house including Sundaresh entered the house after breaking open the front door.
The deceased however, companyld number be seen there.
P. 14.
The presence of the accused in the house of the deceased had number been explained by the accused because both of them came out with a case that they had been picked up by police from their respective residence.
The accused has number examined the doctor who according to the accused had been treating the deceased for epileptics fit for a long time.
During the night between 14th and 15th December, 1982, he was murdered by the accused persons, It is undisputed that the accused No.
Chappals of both the accused found inside the house and on the terrace of the said house.
Accused No.
P. 11.
At that stage, they saw the legs of the deceased in the kitchen.
While the said accused Mayamma was attending to her case for maintenance, she became acquainted with accused No.
The High Court has held that P.W.6 is an independent and disinterested witness and numberhing was brought out in cross examination to show that he had any animosity against any of the accused persons which prompted him to depose falsely.
2 Mayamma tapped on the said door.
2, Smt.
The expert opinion of D.W, 1 should have been accepted by the High Court and if there was a reasonable basis for such opinion of DW 1 about the nature of death of the deceased and if the opinion of the said doctor was number wholly perverse and had been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, the same should number have been discarded by the High Court on reappraisal of the evidences.
1 was number of A group.
The dead body was sent for autopsy.
17 and 18 had performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and the expert opinion of the doctor examined on behalf of the accused DW 1 was number acceptable.
2 tapped on the from door of the house and Ramesh opened the door.
2 and the accused No.
By the aforesaid Judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused appellants by VIII Additional City and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City on January 2, 1985 in Sessions Case No.
At about 1 or 1.15 a.m. on December 15, 1982, Ramesh was found opening the front door of his house when accused No.
It was companytended by the accused that the death of the deceased was number homicidal in nature but he died a natural death and the said doctor D.W. 1 also gave expert opinion to that effect.
P.W.4 went to his house and wrote a companyplaint Ext.
6/5, 9th Cross, Adarsha Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore.
She had filed an application claiming maintenance from her husband P.W.7, and had secured an order in her favour.
The Accused No.
The presence of blood stain on the shirt and pant of accused No.
2 companyched below it, shivering all the while.
The companyplaint Ext.
The three of them then came near the house of the deceased and P.W.4 the door of the house but there was numberresponse, P.W. 4 thereafter left the place saying that he would inform his brother Ramachandra Rao and also his companysin Inderesh.
Both the accused entered the said house of Ramesh at about 1 or 1.15 a.m. on December 15, .1982.
Raju thereafter went away and returned with two police Constables P.W.5, P. Nanjundappa and another Police Constable Basavaraju.
2 had entered the house of Ramesh and thereafter accused No.
They entered the bed room and switched on the light but they did number see anything.
After accused No.
The High Court has accepted the evidence that the front door of the house of the deceased was broken open and only on such breaking open the door the neighbours and relations companyld gain entry to the house of the deceased and on such entry they companyld find out that both the accused were hiding under the company in the bed room of the deceased.
Both the accused were arrested at 2.45 A.M. The Circle Inspector, who on receipt of the information took over the investigation from P.W. 14, numbericed that the shirt and pant of accused No.
P.W.I Ramachandra Rao who was residing in the house adjacent to the house of the deceased heard a sound of cries and he woke up.
They were seen near the house of the deceased at about 1 or 1.15 A.M. on December 15, 1982.
His neck was swollen and blood was seen on the lips of Ramesh.
Seetharama Reddy, P.W.2, was a neighbour of the deceased and he woke up on hearing the barking of a dog and he came near the house of the deceased.
1 was standing at a little distance from the house.
She stated that the deceased had instructed her number to visit him on 13th and 14th December, 1982 as he would have guests on those dates.
They did number see anything.
By that time, P.W.4 returned.
By that time other residents of the Vatara also awoke including P.W. 13 Vijaya.
The learned Sessions Judge also did number believe the statement as to recovery of chappals of the accused as deposed by P.W. D.Thelearned Sessions Judge also did number accept the post mortem report that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia on account of smothering but he accepted the expert opinion of the doctor DW.
The accused No.
Both the accused made statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and they also submitted written statement.
The High Court has companye to the finding that both the doctors P.Ws.
The light of the front door of Ramesh was switched on but numberhing was seen there.
P.W. 2 also tapped the door of the house hut there was numberresponse.
Then P.W. 1 and P.W.3 told him what P.W. 1 had heard.
1 followed her and also entered the house.
1 and 3 went to his house and woke him up and informed him about the sound which P.W.I had heard.
1 who was standing little away also entered the house.
Learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and the following circumstances had been numbered by the learned Sessions Judge Ramesh was alone residing in his house on the night in between 14th and 15th December, 1982.
Scratch marks were found on the face of Ramesh.
The post mortem was companyducted jointly by P.W. 17 and P.W. 18 at about 12.00 numbern on December 15, 1982 and post mortem numbere was prepared being Ext.
Shortly after their entrance, cries were beard from the house of the deceased and on tapping the door numberody opened the door and on breaking open the door, both the accused were found under the company in the bed room of the deceased and the deceased was found dead in the kitchen with marks of injuries and a blood stained towel was lying near the body.
On December 14, 1982, both the accused witnessed a cinema show in Uma Talkies and returned together.
The said two persons were informed and they returned immediately to the house of the deceased.
Some sound like cries were heard by the next door neighbour Raghunatha Rao, from inside the house of Ramesh.
He then went to the Police Station where Pratap Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.14 was officer in charge.
On being called, both of them came out.
Both of them went near the house but they did number hear any sound from the said house, P.W.4, Sundaresh, the elder brother of the deceased had his house nearby and P.Ws.
At that time the accused No.
When P.W. 2 flashed the torch underneath the company they numbericed Accused No.
1 was found, Ramesh was found lying dead in the kitchen.
He came out and went to the house of his neighbour Hemoji Rao P.W.3 , a retired Constable and requested him to accompany him to find out what was the cause for the sound.
The said accused was often visiting the house of the deceased Ramesh during the night time.
2 though admitted that she was the mistress of the deceased and the photos seized by the police were her photos, she stated that the deceased was number only looking after her but also looking after her children.
1 to the effect that it was a case of natural death.
1 appeared to be stained with blood and he seized the said blood stained wearing apparels by securing panchas.
1, Eshwariaiah, who was a Constable attached to the Wilson Garden Police Station and intimacy developed between the accused No.
Hence, the report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist in regard to the blood stain on shirt and pant of the deceased would number be of any assistance.
1 and the said tickets were also seized in the presence of the Panchas.
The blood stained towel, the stick with which the window pane was broken, some nude photos of Accused 2 being M.Os 12 to 89 were seized by the police.
The High Court has also accepted the evidence that harsh sound was heard by one of the witnesses being a close neighbour of the deceased.
Dr. C.B. Gopalakrishna DW 1 a retired professor in Forensic Medicine, was examined by the accused as witness for the defence.
The learned Sessions Judge, however, did number accept the evidence of Panch witness P.W.8 as he companyld number explain why he was present in tailoring shop at 3.00 a.m. The learned Sessions Judge also held that the prosecution case companyld number establish that the blood of the accused No.
1 had denied all the circumstances and companytended that he was taken to custody from his house.
Hence, she was all along in her house and the police picked her up from her house.
Evidence of Dr. Patil and Prof. Somaiah who had companyducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Ramesh opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of smothering closing mouth and numbertrils and pressure over the neck .
One Raju known to P.W. 4 happened to companye there and P.W.4 requested Raju to go and inform the police.
Mayamma, was a mistress of the deceased for about 3 4 years prior to the dale of the incident and she was residing in Ramachandra Raos Vatara in which the house of the deceased was also situated.
They were given to the custody of the said two police Constables.
The companynter foils of the two cinema tickets were also recovered from the accused No.
138 of 1985.
The light of the Pooja room which was adjacent to the kitchen was switched on.
N. Ray, J. This appeal is directed against the companyviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and imposing sentence of life imprisonment to both the appellants by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court by Judgment dated April 1, 1987 in Criminal Appeal No.
Abrasions found on the face and swelling on the neck of Ramesh.
After the two police companystables came to the place of incident, P.W, 4 broke open the window pane and flashed the torch inside.
She denied that she had gone to the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence.
When they switched on the light of the kitchen room, they saw the deceased lying on his back in the kitchen, and a blood stained turkish towel M.O.5 was found lying at a little distance away from the body of Ramesh.
Then the front door of the house of the deceased was broken open with the size stone M.O. 1 and all the said persons entered the house.
It has also been numbered by the High Court that the said Doctor DW.
1 and accused No.
2 entered the house, accused No.
The High Court after analysing that evidences and indicating reasons came to the finding that the evidence of P.W. 5 is to be accepted and if such evidence is accepted, the depositions of P.Ws.
1 to 4 that the two accused were found in the house of the deceased which was closed from inside should also be accepted.
32 of 1983.
The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Ramesh was a bachelor and was residing in House No.
P,3 was presented to the Police Station at 2.00 A.M. and the police officer registered the crime and issued first information report being Ext.
The door leading to the bed room was little opened.
