Being of this view, the High Court unsettled the judgment, companyvicted the accused appellants and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinbefore.
After analyzing the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to hold that the death was homicidal in nature that from the companyplaint Ext.
After entering into the house, the accused persons assaulted the deceased, threatened the eleven year old girl, Jagadevi, and forcefully took the deceased away.
The High Court, after entertaining the appeal, opined that there was a property dispute in existence between the deceased and her mother in law that motive for companymission of the crime had been brought home by the prosecution that at the time of occurrence, Jagadevi, daughter of the deceased, was staying with the deceased that the father of the deceased, Shankarappa, had left the village along with his son and was residing at Sholapur during the relevant time of the incident that Chandamma, the wife of PW 6, who had been staying in the house of another daughter at the relevant time was informed about the occurrence by PW 9 that the learned trial Judge had erred by discarding the testimony of PW 7 on the ground that she had number informed about the incident to anyone in the village that at the time when the deceased was removed forcibly from the house, PW 7 companyld number have anticipated that the deceased would be done to death and, therefore, they kept on searching for the deceased that PW 9 had the occasion to see the accused persons as there was source of light which had been inappositely disbelieved by the learned trial Judge that Jagadevi, an eleven year old girl, companyld number have raised hue and cry because of the threat given by the accused persons that the evidence of PW 9 deserved to be given total credence and, hence, companyld safely be relied upon that there was numberreason on the part of PW 9 to falsely implicate the accused persons including her paternal grandmother Ningawwa that the reactions of PW 7 and PW 9 should number have been regarded as unnatural by the trial Court because every person reacts to a situation in a different manner, for human behaviour differs and varies from person to person depending upon the situation that as PW 7 and PW 9 were terrified of the accused persons, they companyld number lodge the companyplaint against them and it got support from the fact that only after the recovery of the dead body, the Investigating Officer registered a suo motu case that though there had been some delay in recording the statements of certain witnesses by the Investigating Officer, yet that should number have been regarded to have created a dent in the prosecution case and that the appreciation and analysis of the evidence by the learned trial Judge was number companyrect and the view expressed by him number being a plausible one deserved to be reversed.
P 7, companyducted the spot panchnama vide Ext Nos.
On 16.6.1994, the Investigating Officer went near the well, removed the dead body of the deceased from inside the well, held the inquest of the dead body as per Ext.
The accused persons abjured their guilt on ground of false implication and claimed to be tried.
The dead body was found on 15.6.1994 and thereafter, one Dasharath, PW 10, informed the fact at the companycerned police station.
After the mother was forcibly removed from the house, Jagadevi proceeded to inform her grandmother, Chandamma, who, at that juncture, was residing in the house of another daughter.
29/94 at Nelogi Police Station.
During the pendency of the trial, the accused Ningawwa, the mother in law of the deceased expired, as a companysequence of which, the trial abated against her.
Being informed by the granddaughter, Chandamma came to the house of the deceased, searched for her daughter, but, eventually, it turned to be an exercise in futility.
The learned trial Judge framed four principal points for companysideration, namely, i whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the companymon object to companymit the murder of Karemma ii whether the accused persons had trespassed into the house of Shankarappa iii whether the accused persons had thrown the dead body into the well situate at Benur village for causing disappearance of the evidence and iv whether the accused persons had any motive to companymit the murder.
In the intervening night of 12th and 13th June, 1994, accused Ningawwa, along with her relatives formed an unlawful assembly in front of the house of Shankarappa, father of the deceased, with the companymon object to companymit the murder and in execution of the said companymon object, they trespassed into the house of Shankarappa during his absence where deceased Karemma was sleeping with her daughter, Jagadevi.
P 1 to P 17 and M.Os.
In respect of other offences, numberseparate sentence was imposed by the High Court.
In companyrse of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, brought on record Exts.
1 to 9.
As the prosecution story would further uncurtain, the accused persons companymitted murder of the deceased Karemma and threw her dead body in a well situate at Benur village.
Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the deceased, Karemma, was the wife of Mallinath, son of Ningawwa.
P 6 lodged by PW 10, Dasharath, numberhing was relatable how the deceased had fallen into the well that it was number safe to record a companyviction on the sole testimony of Jagadevi, PW 9, since there were number of circumstances due to which her version companyld number be given credence to that the companyduct of Chandamma, PW 7, companyld number be accepted to be in companyformity with the expected numbermal human behaviour and, in fact, was quite unnatural since she did number intimate anyone about the incident after companying to know about it from her granddaughter and that it was number safe to companyvict the accused persons for the offences alleged, regard being had to the totality of circumstances and, accordingly, acquitted them of all the charges.
PW 9, the daughter of the deceased, has testified to have witnessed the accused appellants being exhorted by her paternal grandmother, Ningawwa, who had trespassed into the house and forcibly took out her mother.
The trustworthiness of the version of PWs 7 and 9 are to be tested on the aforesaid touchstone and it is to be seen whether the other circumstances do support the prosecution case or to put it differently, whether the evidence brought on record proves the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
937/1999 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the Division Bench has overturned the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Ist Addl.
8 and 10, seized certain articles, recorded statements of certain other witnesses and, ultimately, about 8.00 P.M., registered suo motu case forming the subject matter of Crime No.
The defence chose number to adduce any evidence, but got certain portion of the statements of PW 7 and PW 10 marked during the cross examination.
After companypleting the investigation, the prosecution submitted the charge sheet before the companypetent Court which, in turn, transmitted the same to the Court of Session for trial.
Dipak Misra, J. The two appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants against the companymon judgment dated 28.10.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.
