Accused 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.
PW 4 went to his house and wrote a companyplaint Ext.
By that time other residents of the Vatara also awoke including PW 13 Vijaya.
The accused has number examined the doctor who according to the accused had been treating the deceased for epileptic fits for a long time.
Both the accused made statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and they also submitted written statements.
The said accused was often visiting the house of the deceased Ramesh during the night time.
The deceased however, companyld number be seen there.
On December 14, 1982, both the accused witnessed a cinema show in Uma Talkies and returned together.
The companyplaint Ext.
P 1 1.
32 of 1983.
Abrasions were found on the face and swelling on the neck of Ramesh.
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.
Hence, she was all alone in her house and the police picked her up from her house.
138 of 1985.
The presence of bloodstain on the shirt and pant of accused 1 was found.
She stated that the deceased had instructed her number to visit him on December 13 and 14, 1982 as he would have guests on those dates.
The door leading to the bedroom was little open.
The expert opinion of DW I should have been accepted by the High Court and if there was a reasonable basis for such opinion of DW I 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.
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 residences.
At about 1.00 or 1.15 a.m. on December 15, 1982 Ramesh was found opening the front door of his house when accused 2 Mayamma tapped on the said door.
It is undisputed that the accused 2 Smt Mayamma, was a mistress of the deceased for about 3 4 years prior to the date of the incident and she was residing in Ramachandra Raos Vatara in which the house of the deceased was also situated.
Scratch marks were found on the face of Ramesh.
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 DW I also gave expert opinion to that effect.
He came out and went to the house of his neighbour Hemoji Rao PW 3 , a retired Constable and requested him to accompany him to find out what was the cause for the sound.
PW 4 thereafter left the place saying that he would inform his brother Ramachandra Rao and also his companysin Inderesh.
Both the accused were found under a company in the bedroom of Ramesh at about 1.00 or 1.45 a.m. when the neighbours of the said house including Sundaresh entered the house after breaking open the front door.
Accused I had denied all the circumstances and companytended that he was taken to custody from his house.
The High Court after analysing the evidences and indicating reasons came to the finding that the evidence of PW 5 is to be accepted and if such evidence is accepted, the depositions of PWs I to 4 that the two accused were found in the house of the deceased which was closed from inside should also be accepted.
While the said accused Mayamma was attending to her case for maintenance, she became acquainted with accused I Eshwaraiah, who was a Constable attached to the Wilson Garden Police Station and intimacy developed between accused 2 and accused 1.
Admittedly, she used to visit the house of the deceased quite often at night.
When PW 2 flashed the torch underneath the company they numbericed accused I and accused 2 companyched below it, shivering all the while.
She denied that she had gone to the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence.
The learned Sessions Judge also did number believe the statement as to recovery of chappals of the accused as deposed by PW 13.
After accused 2 entered the house, accused I followed her and also entered the house.
PW 2 also tapped the door of the house but there was numberresponse.
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 bedroom of the deceased.
It has also been numbered by the High Court that the said doctor DW I had number seen the deceased but he gave the expert opinion only from the papers, namely the postmortem report.
They entered the bedroom and switched on the light but they did number see anything.
Both of them went near the house but they did number hear any sound from the said house.
They were given to the custody of the said two police companystables.
They were seen near the house of the deceased at about I or 1.15 a.m. on December 15, 1982.
Seetharama Reddy PW 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.
Some sound like cries were heard by the next door neighbour Raghunatha Rao, from inside the house of Ramesh.
PW 4 Sundaresh, the elder brother of the deceased had his house nearby and PWs I and 3 went to his house and woke him up and informed him about the sound which PW I had heard.
During the night between December 14 and 15, 1982, he was murdered by the accused persons.
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.
Accused 2 tapped on the front door of the house and Ramesh opened the door.
Hence the report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist in regard to the bloodstain on shirt and pant of the deceased would number be of any assistance.
He then went to the police station where Pratap Singh Sub Inspector of Police PW 14 was officer in charge.
Chappals of both the accused found inside the house and on the terrace of the said house.
She had filed an application claiming maintenance from her husband PW 7 and had secured an order in her favour.
Shortly after their entrance, cries were heard 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 bedroom of the deceased and the deceased was found dead in the kitchen with marks of injuries and a bloodstained towel was lying near the body.
After the two police companystables came to the place of incident, PW 4 broke open the window pane and flashed the torch inside.
By that time, PW 4 returned.
The said two persons were informed and they returned immediately to the house of the deceased.
One Raju known to PW 4 happended to companye there and PW 4 requested Raju to go and inform the police.
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 December 14 and 15, 1982.
The learned Sessions Judge also did number accept the postmortem 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 I to the effect that it was a case of natural death.
Dr C.B. Gopalakrishna DW 1 a retired Professor in Forensic Medicine was examined by the accused as witness for the defence.
There were stains of blood on the shirt and pant of accused It has also been observed by the High Court that there was numberreason for accused 2 to hide in the bedroom of the deceased without opening the door if the deceased had in fact suffered an epileptic fit.
The companynterfoils of the two cinema tickets were also recovered from the accused I and the said tickets were also seized in the presence of the Panchas.
His neck was swollen and blood was seen on the lips of Ramesh.
6/5, 9th Cross, Adarsha Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore.
P 3 was presented at the police station at 2.00 a.m. and the police officer registered the crime and issued first information report being Ext.
PW 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.
Raju thereafter went away and returned with two Police Constables PW 5, H. Nanjundappa and another Police Constable Basavaraju.
At that stage, they saw the legs of the deceased in the kitchen.
Both the accused entered the said house of Ramesh at about 1.00 or 1.
The dead body was sent for autopsy.
The postmortem was companyducted jointly by PW 17 and PW 18 at about 12.00 numbern on December 15, 1982 and postmortem was prepared being Ext.
On being called, both of them came out.
The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Ramesh was a bachelor and was residing in House No.
Evidence of Dr Patil and Prof. Somaiah who had companyducted the postmortem examination on 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 .
The bloodstained towel, the stick with which the window pane was broken, some nude photos of accused 2 being MOs 12 to 89 were seized by the police.
Both the accused were arrested at 2.45 a.m. The Circle Inspector who on receipt of the information took over the investigation from PW 14, numbericed that the shirt and pant of accused I appeared to be stained with blood and he seized the said bloodstained wearing apparels by securing Panchas.
When they switched on the light of the kitchen room, they saw the deceased lying on his back in the kitchen and a bloodstained turkish towel MO 5 was found lying at a little distance away from the body of Ramesh.
They did number see anything.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. This appeal is directed against the companyviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC 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.
Then PW I and PW 3 told him what PW I had heard.
The light of the Pooja room which was adjacent to the kitchen was switched on.
The light of the front door of Ramesh was switched on but numberhing was seen there.
The three of them then came near the house of the deceased and PW 4 tapped the door of the house but there was numberresponse.
Then the front door of the house of the deceased was broken open with the size stone MO I and all the said persons entered the house.
The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had satisfactorily established circumstances I to 5, 7 and The learned Sessions Judge however, did number accept the evidence of Panch witness PW 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 accused I was number of A group.
15 a.m. on December 15, 1982.
At that time accused I was standing at a little distance from the house.
Ramesh was found lying dead in the kitchen.
The High Court has companye to the finding that both the doctors PWs 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 I was number acceptable.
