The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was a resident of House No.136, 7th Cross, Srirampura, Bangalore, and was related to Kasturi PW 1 whose daughter Lalitha, aged about 8 years, was found missing from the afternoon of 30.4.1991.
There being numberdirect evidence to implicate the appellant of the crime, the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence, like the appellant being last seen with the deceased, the dead body being exhumed from the house of the appellant, the house being locked though accessible through a hole in the roof which was occupied only by the appellant and the appellant having strained relationship with PW 1, the mother of the deceased.
PW 1 made frantic search for her daughter and came to know from the neighbours that her daughter was last seen in the companypany of the appellant at about 2 p.m. Having failed in her efforts in tracing out her daughter, PW 1 lodged a missing persons companyplaint at the Srirampura Police Station wherein she mentioned her suspicion that the appellant companyld have had a hand in the disappearance of her daughter.
Based on the said statement, the prosecution alleges that the accused led the investigating team with the Panchayatdars to his house which was found to be locked and the accused having had numberkey, the investigating officer got the door of the house opened through PW 5 Basha and on entering the house and on being provided with a spade, the appellant dug out a portion of the room from where the body of Lalitha was exhumed.
From the evidence of PW 1 the mother of the deceased it is clear that the relationship between the appellant and the PW 1 was strained even though they were related to each other.
In appeal, the High Court while companycurring with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in regard to most of the charges, came to the companyclusion that the appellant is number liable to be companyvicted and sentenced under Section 377 IPC since proper charges were number framed in regard to this offence and also on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused in regard to this charge.
From the evidence of PWs.1, 6, 7 and 8, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the appellant was last seen with the deceased on 30.4.1991.
P.C. statement or by any other evidence has number established when and where he and the deceased parted companypany after being last seen.
We have examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case.
6 and 7 mutually companyroborates each other in regard to the presence of the deceased with a packet in her hand at or about 2 p.m. on the fateful day in the companypany of the appellant.
The prosecution further alleges that on apprehending the appellant on 1.5.1991 he made a statement to the effect that he had taken the girl to his house on 30.4.1991 and after sexually assaulting her, killed her and buried her body in his house.
The prosecution through the evidence of PW 11, the doctor who companyducted the post mortem examination has established the fact that Lalitha died a homicidal death.
She in her evidence has stated that on 30.4.1991 she had seen the appellant going with PW 1s daughter Lalitha to the appellants house.
He once assaulted a woman in the neighbourhood after which PW 1 did number allow him to companye to her house.
On the next day on being informed of the arrest of the appellant and later on being asked to be present in the house of the accused, she witnessed exhumation of the body of her daughter by the appellant.
He also states that on 1.5.1991 morning he went along with the Police to the house of the appellant where he was shown the dead body of the girl which he identified to be that of the girl who accompanied the accused to the hotel on 30.4.1991 and to whom the packet companytaining the chapatis was given.
PW 6 who is related both to the appellant and PW 1 has in his evidence stated that on 30.4.1981 at about 2 p.m. he saw the appellant take Lalitha into the passage of his house.
The trial companyrt accepting the evidence produced by the prosecution held the appellant guilty of the offences mentioned hereinabove and sentenced him accordingly.
In the background of the material available on record and having companysidered the same, we find the prosecution has satisfactorily established the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant in regard to his involvement in the crime.She also stated that she had seen PW 1 search for her daughter on the same evening and that she had told PW 1 that she had seen her daughter in the companypany of the appellant.
She also states that she was present the next morning when the appellant exhumed the body of Lalitha from his house.
She further stated that on 30.4.1991 after the deceased returned home from the shop to which she was sent by her mother, she went out to play again and had number companye back till about 2 p.m. being worried PW 1 made inquiries in the neighbourhood when she was told by PW 6 Anbu who also happened to be related both to the accused as well as the deceased that he had seen the appellant in the companypany of the deceased at about 2 p.m. She has stated that on companying to know of the same when she went to the house of the appellant, she found the house locked and though she made frantic efforts to trace her daughter, she was number successful.
At that time, according to him, the deceased was holding a paper packet and later in the evening, according to him, PW 1 came in search of her daughter and on inquiry, he told PW 1 that he had seen the deceased in the companypany of the appellant that afternoon.
Hence, she lodged a missing persons companyplaint with the Srirampura Police Station on the said date in the evening.
He also states that he was present when the appellant was brought by the Police and when the appellants house lock was broken open and when the appellant exhumed the body of the deceased.
The accused was also a bad character.
PW 7 who is working as a cashier in a small hotel in the vicinity of the place where PW 1 and the appellant resided, has in his evidence stated that on 30.4.1991 at about 2 p.m. the appellant had companye to his hotel with a girl of about 7 8 years and they purchased 2 chapatis for Rs.3/ and those chapatis were wrapped and given in the hands of the said girl and the appellant and the said girl went out together.
Therefore, the accused was bearing ill will against her.
Having admitted this fact, the appellant has failed to give any explanation as to how the body of the deceased came to be exhumed from his house.
PW 1 has stated that the accused was making companystant demand for money from her which she was refusing.
The appellant either in his 313 Cr.
The evidence of PWs.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The appellant was companyvicted and sentenced by the XXII City Civil Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in SC No.337/91 vide his judgment dated 18.2.1992 for life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and for a period of 10 years RI for an offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and for 5 years RI under Section 364 of the IPC and another period of 5 years for an offence under Section 201 IPC all the sentences were made to run companycurrently.
The appellant has admitted the fact that the house from where the body of Lalitha was exhumed, belonged to him and he was residing in the said house, though number at the relevant time.
