After companypleting the investigation a chargesheet under Sections 302 and 392 read with 397 IPC was filed against the appellant before the trial companyrt.
PW 32 Vishwanath Pandit Sub Inspector of Police.
It is against the said judgment of the High Court the appellant is in appeal before us.
After opening the bundle it was seen that it companytained jewellery which were seized by the I.O. in the presence of Panchas, thereafter the appellant led them to a place where MO 47 the sickle used in the attack on the victims was recovered at the instance of the accused.
PW 4 Flacy Lobo sent PWs.1 and 2 to their house and she herself came and informed her husband about what she saw in the house of Appi and requested him to inform the Police.
Recovery of stolen gold ornaments, cash belonging to the victims and bloodstained shirt of accused and weapon used for offence from at the instance of the accused.
Mangalore Rural Police Station then was at a place called Pachanady at about 11 a.m. in companynection with the investigation of another crime when he received a wireless message about the finding of 4 dead bodies in the house at Vamanjur within the jurisdiction of Rural Police Station, Mangalore.
During the companyrse of said investigation this I.O. came to know that the appellant was a visitor to the house of deceased.
The appellant in the companyrse of his statement under Section 313 Cr.
In the absence of any direct evidence the prosecution relied upon certain circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant.
P 3 and 5 respectively.
He also sent messages to the District Police Office to send the dog squad and finger print expert.
So she returned to her house and reported this to her grand mother who in turn went to the house of PW 1 Suresh Kumar and informed him about the said fact.
Non explanation of the incriminating evidence that appeared against him by the accused.
PW 4 then accompanied PWs.1 and 2 and came near the house of Appi and entered the house which was found open from the Southern direction and they saw Appi lying dead with bleeding injuries.
After his marriage he shifted his residence to his native place namely Uppinangadi.
PW 32 then sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination and recorded the statements of PWs 2, 4, 5 and CWs.
K.R. Venkatesh finger print expert came from Mangalore and in the companyrse of his examination numbericed some finger prints on the almirah which he lifted.
8 and 10 i.e. Ramani and Seetharama Poojary respectively.
Presence of accused within the vicinity of house of deceased on the relevant day and companyduct of accused before and after companymission of offence.
On the way he took another Panch PW 12 B.Rama Bhat Prosecution alleges that on reaching Uppinangadi the appellant led them to a bamboo bush located in a hillock in the areca garden belonging to his father.
Her one daughter Shakuntala and her daughter i.e. the grand daughter of Appi by name Deepika were staying with said Appi while Shakuntalas husband Jayantha PW 7 was employed at Muscat.
He directed PW 29 Gopala Krishna Shetty S.I. to hold simultaneous inquest on the dead bodies of Govinda and Deepika which was done as per inquest Panchnamas Ex.
Prosecution further alleges at about 10.30 a.m. PW 1 went to bring some vegetables along with PW 2 to the shop of PW 4 Flacy Lobo at that time they informed her of what was numbericed by them in the house of Appi.
It is based on these circumstances having companye to the companyclusion that each and every link in the chain of circumstances have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt the trial companyrt found the appellant guilty, hence companyvicted him as stated above.
In the meantime he held inquest over the dead body of Appi in the presence of PW 9 Chandrahasa Rai and others as per Ex.
He further held the inquest over the dead body of Shakuntala in the presence of some Panchas and drew up the inquest Panchnama Ex.
46/1994 for offences punishable under sections 449, 302 and 308 IPC and an FIR was sent to the companyrt.
For companyfirmation of the sentence of death, she referred the matter to the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal RC 2 of 2002 while the appellant also preferred an appeal against the judgment and companyviction before the same High Court, The High Court by a companymon judgment dated 28.10.2002 while dismissing the criminal appeal of the appellant accepted the reference and companyfirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial companyrt.
PW 32 then immediately went to the place of incident and secured PW 1 and recorded his statement as per Ex.
PW 1 then went to the house of Appi along with PW 2 and they too got numberresponse when they called out for Appi so they came back to the house and told the mother of PW 1 about their efforts to companytact said Appi.
From 25.2.1994 the investigation was taken over and companytinued by PW 33 J. Papaiah, Circle Inspector, who during the companyrse of investigation examined and recorded statements of PW 3 Prema Shetty, PW 6 Seetharam Gurpur, PW 8 Sarojini and other witnesses.
P 1 based on which a case was registered against unknown persons in Crime No.
The appellant then went near a bush and took, out a bundle tied in a kerchief and opened the same.
In the meantime PW 30.
Presence of finger prints of accused at the spot.
The High Court relying on the very same circumstances agreed with learned Sessions Judge and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial companyrt.
P.C. has number given any explanation how and in what circumstances he got the money to release the jewellery pledged by him as far back as in the year 1993 immediately after the incident in question.
On 28.2.1994 PW 33 recorded the statement of PW 7 Jayantha and on companying to know of the possibility of appellants involvement in the murder he sent his staff to apprehend the accused which was done on 2.3.1994 and he was produced before PW 33 by PW 31 Manohar Soans S.I. at about 10.30 p.m. Prosecution further alleges that on his interrogation the appellant made a voluntary disclosure statement which is marked as Ex.
Homicidal death of the deceased.
Said deceased Smt.
Appi had 3 sons and 3 daughters.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant is the son of the brother of one of the deceased Smt.
During the companyrse of investigation, certain receipts and chits were recovered from the shop of PW 25 under Panchnama Ex.
About 3 years prior to the date of the incident the appellant used to stay with said Appi in her house at Vamanjur, Mangalore Taluk, doing tailoring work.
Since it was already late on that day the 1.6.
P 35 wherein he stated that if taken to the place companycerned he would show where he had hidden the ornaments, cash and the weapons used in the crime.
The trial companyrt companysidering the material placed by the prosecution came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had established beyond all reasonable doubt the following circumstances The relationship of accused with the family of the deceased.
Santosh Hegde, J. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore by her judgment dated 4.2.2002 in Sessions Case No.
P 16 and a cheque under Panchnama Ex.
P.C. is one of total denial.
The factum of the appellant pledging his wifes jewellery in the year 1993 and its redemption immediately after the murder is established number only by the evidence of PW 25 but also from the documents of the firm where the jewellery in question was pledged and then redeemed.
Possession of valuable ornaments and cash by deceased Shakunthala and others.
Appis another son Govinda was also staying with her in her house in Vamanjur on Mangalore Karkala road.
When they went to another room they saw son of Appi, Govinda also with bleeding injuries and in another adjacent room they found the dead bodies of Shakuntala and Deepika with injuries on their heads.
The case of the appellant as companyld be seen from his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.
on the next morning i.e. on 3.3.1994 secured the presence of PW 10 Dr. Satish Mallya and 2 others and took them to Uppinangadi as indicated by the appellant.
Motive.
