6 and 7 came to her house at about 8.00 p.m. and took her son Yankanna as his assistance was required in companynection with digging of a borewell in the land of the appellant.
Post mortem examination was companyducted at the spot itself by PW 21 between 4.45 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. It is on 24th July, 2001, PW 10 to 12 came to the police station Bilagi and he had shown M.O. 1 underwear , M.O. 6 Waist thread and photos to PW 10 to 12 based on which they identified the dead body as that of Yankanna.
She further stated that when she insisted the appellant to produce her son, the appellant told her deceased Yankanna had illicit companynection with his wife Hanamawwa PW 19 because of that he killed my son.
Immediately, he rushed to the place and found the dead body of a person near the pump house.
PW 11, Lacchawa wife of the deceased admitted in her cross examination that she learnt that there was illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of the appellant only when the police told her.
The body was tied by another rope at the place of neck also.
6 and 7 since they were frequently roaming around her house, making inquiries about her son.
Weapons of offence were also recovered on the basis of the voluntary information furnished by the appellant.
She did number see the body of her husband.
He returned to the Bilagi police station and lodged information exhibit P 22.
6 and 7 told deceased Yankannas mother Yallawwa PW 10 that they required the services of her son in companynection with digging of a borewell in the land of the appellant.
The appellant took the deceased and went away.
2 to 5 and companysequently, acquitted them of all the charges.
but companyld number find him.
Inspector of police PW 29 lodged information with regard to the same and the same was registered as Crime No.
6 and 7.
In her evidence, she stated that she did number claim the dead body of her son number the police told her to take away the body of the deceased.
The learned Sessions Judge found that the materials were number sufficient and numbercase was made out as against accused Nos.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellant.
As it was revealed that the incident occurred within Kaladgi limits, PW 29 submitted the entire papers on 8.8.2001 to Kaladgi Police Station for further investigation.
Thereafter, PW 29 companyducted inquest in the presence of PW 1 and 2 and sent for the medical officer to companyduct the post mortem examination.
That after 7 8 days having received the information about a dead body floating in the Ghataprabha river, PW 10 and herself went and saw the dead body and found it to be of her husband.
6 and 7 were acquitted by the High Court of all the charges leveled against them.
In the meanwhile, PW 10 along with PW 18 had gone to Kaladgi police station and lodged a companyplaint on 22.7.2001 inter alia alleging that her son was working as a tractor driver for about 3 4 years with the appellant and about 3 months back, her deceased son left the job on account of some disputes between them.
Thereafter, her husband did number return home.
The dead body was taken out from the river.
Had she really identified the dead body of her son on 21.7.2001 numberhing prevented her from referring to it in exhibit P 6.
Dr. Sabu Satihal, Medical Officer, KIMS, Hubli PW 21 companyducted the post mortem examination.
She did number attend the funeral of her son.
The whole case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of the mother and wife of the deceased PW Nos.
The dead body was taken out of the river.
He undertook further investigation and arrested the accused.
She did number state that her son was number present when the appellant along with other accused came to her house and her son returned home only after half an hour.
If one goes by the companytents of exhibit P 6 it becomes clear that she knew numberhing about the dead body found in the Ghataprabha river.
Intimation of detection of dead body in Ghataprabha river was flashed to the neighbouring police stations and the same was received by Kaladgi police station and in furtherance of the same, PW 10 and PW 11 were taken to the place.
The Sessions Court acquitted accused Nos.
In the first information report she does number say anything about the illicit relationship of deceased Yankanna and appellants wife Hanamawwa PW 19 .
On questioning, the appellant informed PW 10 that he had brought back deceased Yankanna at about 11.00 p.m. on the same night and had left him in the village.
The evidence of PW 10 is full of companytradictions apart from being at variance with exhibit P 6 FIR lodged by her before the Kaladgi police station and the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW 29 .
PW 11 is numbere other than the wife of the deceased.
She made inquiries with the appellant who stated that he had dropped her son in the village at 11.00 p.m. Other accused also did number give any satisfactory explanation.
PW 10 filed the companyplaint to the police.
She suspected that there was some dispute between her son and the appellant, accused Nos.
In the cross examination, she stated in categorical terms that at the time of arrival of the appellant at her house, her son Yankanna was number present at home and only half an hour later he returned home and immediately the appellant took him away.
However, there was underwear found on the body which was taken out and the body was preserved for two days for identification.
The legs of the dead body were found folded and tied with a rope.
No witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
In furtherance of the voluntary information given by the appellant, PW 29 companyld ascertain the places where the deceased had been taken by the appellant and other accused, who were involved in the incident as well as the place where the dead body of Yankanna had been thrown into river.
6 and 7 and acquitted them.
The First Information Report is exhibit P 23 dated 21.7.2001.
The accused pleaded number guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried.
The remaining accused namely appellant and Accused Nos.
The body was highly decomposed and the bones were exposed.
It was about 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, her son did number return to home.
The deceased refused to go but they took her son forcibly and the same was numbericed by her neighbours.
6 and 7 with them.
Bilagi Police Station took her to Kaladgi Police Station in the police jeep where she lodged Exhibit P 6.
On the next day, Yallawwa PW 10 went in search of her son but companyld number find him.
Prior to the arrival of the deceased, she and the appellant and PW 11 were present in the house.
He claims to have made certain recoveries.
It was found that the head and rest of the portion of the body had been severed.
She apprehended that the appellant may cause harm to her son.
She stated in her evidence that about 3 years ago at 8.00 p.m., appellant with two others came to her house and took away her husband with them.
In Exhibit P 6 FIR , it is stated by PW 10 that her deceased son Yankanna left his job about 3 months prior to the date of the incident.
6 and 7 and inquired about the whereabouts of her son but they also did number give any satisfactory answer.
The appellants suspicion about the deceased having illicit intimacy with his wife led to serious misunderstanding between them because of which, deceased left his job as the tractor driver.
2 and 3 were arrested.
It is required to numberice that most of the witnesses namely, PW Nos.
6 and 7 went in the car of the appellant to the house of the deceased.
91/2001 of Bilagi Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.
They are number trustworthy witnesses.
It is doubtful as to how and in what circumstances exhibit P 6 came into existence.
When deceased Yankanna returned home within half an hour, he was immediately taken by the appellant and accused Nos.
The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka by the impugned judgment, however, accused Nos.
She did number perform the funeral.
She made inquiries with her deceased son in that regard who did number respond.
Thereafter she and her relatives demanded the appellant to produce the deceased Yankanna.
It is admitted by her in the cross examination while she was waiting in Bilagi police station, her mother in law PW 10 went and saw the dead body of her husband and she came and told her that it was the dead body of her husband Yankanna.
PW 10, in her evidence, stated that the appellant along with accused Nos.
She accepted that on receipt of information about floating of a dead body in the Ghataprabha river, she went there and identified the dead body as that of her son.
She asserted that PW 10 filed a companyplaint to the police as we came to know about the illicit relationship between the deceased and Hanamawwa wife of the appellant through police.
He also says that he got the photos of the body taken prior to cremation.
It was found in Anagwadi river.
She further stated in her evidence, it is the police who told her that there was illicit relationship between deceased and Hanamawwa, wife of the appellant.
6 and 7 were companyvicted for the offences punishable under Section 302, 364, and 201 of the IPC.
PW 29, Inspector of Police, Bilagi police station stated in his evidence that on receiving information on 21st July, 2001 about floating a dead body at the Northern bank of Ghataprabha river near the pump house, went there and found one unknown dead body was floating in the Ghataprabha river near the pump house.
Looking at M.O.1 first time in the companyrt, she identified the same as underwear of her husband.
She suspected that the said three persons might have killed her son.
The appellant and accused No.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Yankanna Balakannavar had illicit intimacy with the wife of the appellant Smt.
Police Inspector of Bagalkot police station PW 26 took up further investigation on 9.8.2001 and filed charge sheet against the appellant and accused Nos.
Deceased was working as the driver of the tractor of the appellant during 2001.
On 12.7.2001 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant and accused Nos.
50/01 for the offence under Section 364 read with 34 IPC.
6 came along with her and also searched for the deceased Yankanna.
All sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
It is further alleged that about 11 days back i.e. on 12.7.2001, herself, the deceased and Lacchavva wife of the deceased PW 11 were sitting in their house and at that time the appellant, accused Nos.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PW 10 and 11 which is companysistent and the circumstances in which the dead body was found in the river clearly indicated that the dead body had been thrown into Ghataprabha river after companymitting murder of the person and the identification by PW 10 that the dead body was that of Yankanna, the chain of events is companyplete and in the absence of any explanation by the appellant, only companyclusion to be arrived at is that the appellant was responsible and liable for the murder of the deceased Yankanna.
I saw and identified the underwear M.O.1 and identified the body as it belongs to my son.
2 to 7 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 354, 302, 201 read with 149 of the IPC.
On that night, deceased Yankanna did number return home.
Thereafter, PW 10 and her nephew Kamanna Parameshwar PW 18 went in search of the deceased Yankanna and in the process, made inquiries in nearby villages namely Dadanatti, Rugi, Chabbi etc.
2, 3, 4 and 5.
In Exhibit P 6 she stated that her deceased son was taken away forcibly by the appellant, accused Nos.
On the next day, she along with PW 10 went to Kaladagi police station where PW 10 filed the companyplaint Exhibit P 6.
Thereafter, her son has number returned.
Hanamawwa PW 19 .
she suspected the appellant had companymitted the murder of her son.
On an analysis of the evidence referred to herein above, we find it very difficult to believe the evidence of PW 10 and PW 11.
She had searched for her son in neighbouring villages but companyld number find him.
It was in a highly decomposed companydition.
Having waited for about 5 6 days, she filed a written companyplaint, written through PW 18 addressed to Kaladagi Police Station marked as exhibit P 6.
The appellant and accused Nos.
She specifically states that I saw the body and his head was chopped off and hands and legs were cut off and the rope was tied to the body.
It is on 8th August, 2001 he made over the case for further investigation to the C.P.I of Bagalkot, Rural Circle through Kaladgi police station.
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentences imposed as against the appellant.
He summoned the Medical Officer PW 21 to companyduct post mortem examination at the spot and thereafter buried the body there itself.
She merely stated that there was some dispute between the appellant and the deceased but in evidence, she stated that the appellant told her that deceased Yanakanna had illicit companynection with his wife Hanamawwa PW 19 because of that he killed her son.
The prosecution, in order to establish the case, examined in all 30 witnesses.
The police traced the dead body of Yankanna.
In exhibit P 6 there is numbermention of her companying to the Ghataprabha river and anything about the identification of the dead body of her son.
She did number file any companyplaint to the Bilagi Police Station.
6 and 7 came to her and stated that they required her son in companynection with digging of a borewell in the land of the appellant.
2 took her husband and companymitted the murder.
On 26.7.2001, appellant and accused Nos.
On the basis of the said information a case was registered by sub Inspector PW 28 , Kaladgi Police Station as Crime No.
In this case we are companycerned with the sole appellant Accused No.
It is further stated in the Exhibit P 6 that on 12.7.2001 in the evening she was sitting in her house along with the deceased and his wife Lacchavva PW 11 and that time the appellant, accused Nos.
PW 10 identified the body as that of her son Yankanna on the basis of the underwear found on the body.
On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal of accused Nos.
On 21.7.2001, Inspector of Bilagi Police Station PW 29 received information that there was a dead body found floating in the Ghataprabha river.
The companyviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.
He was number at home.
6 and 7 came to her house and she invited them inside.
Not satisfied with the answer given by the appellant, PW 10 went to accused Nos.
In the FIR, PW 10 does number say that the deceased Yankanna was working with the appellant as tractor driver but in her evidence she stated that deceased Yankanna was working with the appellant.
The Medical Officer companyld number companyfirm as to whether the body was that of a male or female since the genital portion had been highly decomposed.
