High Court · 2011

Judgment

1. It I.wd F Staib. i—Tnb!t. 1J( rl1 — ljdrr rw%tr ret1 i • i—,’ I Cnni.’ ‘.60,’2flfl6 li51r1s1 ;,rcbIi%t%rt \o. I Sun Liun ‘a an ‘u’%ed 2 — I sli (in ‘ OII( Ii C 1 I IN. ... 11w ( jt s ‘:t ha. ‘jt U I CVt I t•— Thur C’fl )?( 6 1 I P Ici JLi ii’ il Hi:i JI€e—n ‘rI ‘1ItIi 1:) I. “r’ i.i1i ti LIP %fl J t t i’r. ;I)p. t I 1iin. .h11 ji1, •; •h€ r * ‘Jf Jji I • Iii I VA • il • •tj •t J •• • ,h t .‘L•jil• I •I • • • 4 •. • . • . • • i •: Sill;?.;:‘‘VP ‘ I” ndcIl’tu.nal(l lI t,tIt’31L1 ? k.)JJ1(f f)LIl’ alitp‘P1’•,II9J ,11 Ihi;t)’IE’ )U10) Lt’’i1tli)iiLit )j Li’J I )I SI 111111 •“L(‘4‘)st [))‘iiLiiI’.., liT ‘ j 111 j)1VflO’1“ ‘)\11j ‘i I U ‘XI’tlit t SI11A lIEU .1 ttILl%t )$UTi •iqt•‘ ‘S 1’tiiii Lit’t)LS 11!ijjj PIll’) is)S4 560111 •1)fl. j I ‘ j.ii1 fl)1n1 i’tgifiLll’’L((J J1’T•‘iaj I’ ii’tt.. T(’ 9!JitlitC’i(J 1)a%1)‘)tl ;)—ii)Ju iP I ‘i; ,TiL kiLt •li,;i j‘‘ ‘J,)%I .1)1%1 !‘ 1:’_(.4 1 ‘ LI)j p’Lift ‘Ii —‘ ‘ ‘ (1’j ) .1)( ‘tiit I’ Ii \ \ F 1I(i( i C)i 0(1i1h21 11 0(1 F 3 7 I - 2 1 1 1i ‘t 1p0 11 di i3 70 1 1 N I ( - 1FF ‘Sit ‘Fl ION ‘—1 ;t{t’ ‘00 14 -1 i’t F UF1i ii tii1ti It-i h )l\ I it’ filEt iIt’f (i 1’(ctdi 11411 7 7 2000 iiE1i-UI1 P\V. !;ui’I 2 Nt’tF IN ho I t tF’tHi IF Hot l 0’ (IHJ(I LJ -, F ‘i’ H_ F 1i-oh F ‘ in i3l Uhurt 4J5 11011K Hi’ lilt hut-k i 0 1 biucdinu Oh ni ti, 1141 1 1Q51 115 00 dIs I 701 LiSt F i 0 liti 010 F ‘1110 11 0 K’ ‘lit JI I 40 t 1 iiOtl Ii 1 ( —1 Li H Oh Ft 11(1 1 I l) (1 ‘1 0) 11 1 Ii CrI.ANo.382/2008 :9: ground to accused No.2. Further, he told him that on that day at about 3.00 a.m. accused No.1 sat on the chest of deceased and throttled his neck and Umesh suffocated his father by pressing the pillow on his face. He also told him that while the deceased was struggling, he has sustained injury on his head when he came in contact with leg of the cot. The accused Laxmavva and Umesh requested to save them. At about 12.30 to 1.00 p.m. himself, PWs.1 and 2 went to the police station and narrated the incident to police and the police recorded his statement as per Ex.P.8. He further deposed that during the lifetime of deceased Dhannappa, accused Laxniavva was not keeping good terms with him since she suspected the illicit relationship with other woman. Dharmappa told him that Umesh is not regularly attending the college. He enquired with the accused (0/ S2 1 C. ) t r I: K. %(II.ci”•• ,‘-gI)JP ‘ •‘—‘“b I!’: L’ l%1it)I( 1)U1!’’; i 11 II It - I !Iitif, (I id‘dlt?t1(..%) Il ‘, .. iiixlP‘1)1 iltitiN.)l\IIIT t11111(j •PI 1-I1(TPLUIflII(1‘‘ (Qf\p)‘,Lljflj I’1flUVI’i LI)STJt V1‘(‘1’‘1fiJI ) 1 T aSli T ) )

111.11.4‘1’tp)Si...‘b..I.P41p’uMdl,% 11(41)1:11).)1PT,l! flhI(,%flII P1(11ectcIvILItuqq1’”flt’)(tUPLLU’U.I.)ljji) ah‘jtwIjlunq L)LL.pw‘.nIixi’ - -‘I1’ r I I I 1i11111113 ‘ITT(—bTT(sT_?J31 ).TO’Lf.4’i IJuSI)LI IatJlYfl4 t’I’1fl)%j’I‘fl) ‘Lull .1‘j)Ii)!Blfl!1v\flj’tit)’‘ji{111i —1 IPID fliP11%Tills(LInT .1 I I , ij•. I U ‘ ‘ Ii T ,a:,ci:.:t1‘.;1;•nIii’.. 14jP:•T, j;.;‘‘ ) I : rI: ‘_•: i g( I • ! ‘ :12: Cr1 .A.Nn.382/2008 on the previous day at 10.00 p.m. came to the house in the state of Intoxication and dashed against the vaIl aiul fell down. Since it ss’as late night. they could not take the deceased to the hospital. Further. on the next day morning, he was inft)rmed that Dharmappa Is dead. During his cross examination, he states that accused and her son Umesh told him that deceased was having illicit relationship with one Laxmi. The dead body was lying in the hail. Accused No.1 and Umesh were present. He noticed injury near the left eye and bleeding from the nose and ears and bleeding injury on the right back portion of the head. There were scratch wounds on the neck. Then they enquired accuscd Laxmavva and her son Umesh to the true facts. Then Uniesh disclosed that deceased returned home on the previous day at 10.00 p.m. after consuming alcohol and started quarrelling (7 1’; withnut :1113 (‘dUSC. FurLLn’i . he mu! liini t1lkai h’ ‘ia’— I I 1 11 .i •l1 j :11.. i I ( 11 T Iti” i disc In’-nI IIt:i. .1cc tr—td Inxrna a it alx.tit .‘ 00 .t.fll. S 0111 1 1 1 i tc 1 r i 1 .ind a’ th ‘ne.u’tlme hc bad pressed p11k u on the 11 n I in ara ci q tf at ri ‘istc 1. ‘s result his fit a I Ift it the in 1’ cm. i. I I bruathed his last. 1 here adler. C’W I Ilamnnanthappa 1

1. - ) *1 J•$leoil s1.unc. W’Clt prescv; hrrr 111’ denu N;d was !virç lu pill w stat i’d wit i binod B.. turn Vct ‘4 1 W I t UK I c • )tS 1 Ii tr( .:—• •t ill; : 1...rI.I ‘v: I I • C • I — [‘ : ‘. !;‘l’ I • I..’ • • Iii II’ 1” I ‘1’ 1 i ‘ ‘ I ‘1 •1, • . ._i. q,MC•l£b\IT) iSflt)IlPfl’It)‘a •)JI.1I1 II 1IiUlfl U1 S‘.flJ JU‘JLja‘qii’Idi(11?LJ( ‘L1IXl’j %1i1111’1’ n.i_‘is •) Ii”C1’ll—iTJ•s!niL’1t1LL.•)’j1,1 1111I’t1t•)litItiIilJt)‘q ?\\df))I%allbaij..UIJ-fl(PillA,qiii)quuilTilsIk!4t’flI IIOSPill1j:.1Ti4)Mi’1 (TI1 IMd•)11.1•I jU)Shio’tr f)I)T4A1I1j ‘JUS)W1j)19 aqiUIBI, (jn’jnzlaijam lAcqiI(SI..)S(CL31•-[T311 ‘prqtjtill LI) &t’ori‘ i’p’rUI p)Sfl))P I’AvLUXV1 LUTE UO1Ji[ TOVtdtuunl(L .)TT,C•‘4’ tdt’niliii‘II.A) tellnpis r l’llIillI I•ii,iiI i)j)()‘ js1)t)t’•)) ,T ‘ iTT’LdII(, (1.zts;;’.i))t11UITT.a(jI’ ( £ P Afl ; ‘ • T’ 11T’Thu_I!‘‘‘IT—J.Jill. taI’nItT1’P ‘I’ H“ I I T IT ‘iP I ‘q.’it’r•‘ ir’•1( •,lI.Tj —t 1, ‘ I hi—I i•‘.• ,1.‘• T.. • JTIJjI T 0 :15: (‘rl.A.No.382/2008 told him that on the next day deceased was found lying dead. Accused No.1 and Umesh were present. He noticed Injury near the left eye and bleeding from the nose and ears and bleeding injury on the right back portion of the head. There were scratch wounds on the neck. Then he enquired the accused Laxmavva and her son to narrate the true facts. Then Umesh disclosed that this deceased father returned to his house on previous day at 10.00 p.m. after consuming alcohol and started quarrelling without any cause. Further. he told him that he was not meeting the family expenses and deceased always used to stay with his concubine. He told them that they have fed up with the activities of deceased Dharrnappa and planned to commit murder of deceased, so that they can lead their life happily and accused No.2 would also get the job on cOn)penSatory ground. Urnesh further disclosed that at about 3.00 a.m. accused Laxmavva I’ s’n): rc1dnLuIutg JiLl” IkuhlItill) ‘!LI h)It Pu1P LII . Hj St )-.% I!1C 1k ‘I

1. ) SP 14(1 Ii’I

10.4 ‘21%‘ ))jI’ j%, P(‘ I flUpnn9q1L11 ’-’ ThI THULaI1flj i P‘4”uiiJ1’ %! C, I .1t(J0111%t{‘t’V 1tt ii1i4.T)U1aqflhI’—t)(.)-1[’ U. ‘I-”“qu’ .1-)14fl1tJ1LLI -) flPP°rcItIuujlUflTTflUIH- I utlqp-nundiuoxm I Ti U fl?q; tI%3L11 1%‘ii‘i.{pi.’ 1I:?.S ‘Id 4TIUC V(f( )‘lI AA4[ 114 j ‘1P loJ iitC ? 9oL ‘q; IP.lL’sç)):Jt;J U flLLATS’4f)’)(j:‘( T:i :II AL’I1

4. I 6 •fl•i% .I ,l.1 ;. •1 , ;.1•:. Ij.. aI9:“j•U!’ is‘PT)L • •. j tj% .‘ • Cr1 .A.No.382/2008 thu ii they left the house. They have shown the blood stains to the police.

10. PW.3 - Hanumanthappa, has deposed that he knows deceased Dharmappa and his wife Laxmavva and his Son Umesh. There is distance of about 600 feet between the house of deceased and to his house. He Is secretary of Sonia Gandhi Ashraya Colony. Accused Laxmavva and her son Umesh complained to him that deceased Oharmappa had developed illicit intimacy with one woman and he used to quarrel with them. About 8 months back accused I.e., his wife and son committed murder of Dhannappa. On 7.7.2006, he was on patrolling duty in the night with CW-12 Yannur and CW-13 Umesh. They went to garden colony at about 2.30 to 3.00 a.m. then they found one person near the house No.1136. They went near the said person and ascertained that he was CW. 10 Rudrappa of their colony. When they (ii •\.Nn..3’.. 2 (‘ Ut n b%1tli Rul’ i. pa ‘h n’-tr’I —‘onw t’ulrrc lint 111(1 ‘\V 1 Io ilk.! I fl (OLIN I €11 .)t(LI%( Iaxrpav Iting ‘Ml I hi’ thi St (4 LIt U( .ncd 1 hri’i tk..d hi no ‘k ui ‘LI I tnt ‘IIi c ‘und l)rt-s%1n the i’il1o I 41 his fat t. Then t thc & 1 ht’n I h opt nc 15 elrrII’. ral bulb. 1 F It a. I b hc rt i ghr of ihin,u titi ( 1(”iS (‘sJnhI1::rL’n. lie %tite% ‘ia:ii flIt Sit lIZ V’ls 1 iii LlIr( 1d n I .11 ( r. ‘ 1 1: r I it’ nc’aa ‘ ‘.‘. :1 j t’sa.. • ‘ •L 1 •.•_g •.l I .: r .. 1 Iflr’ I ‘liii .1,i ‘Ilil; ‘‘ ‘ 1’ i (‘i’ ‘‘ jo’ . %h. I I, . P( i 1 Crl.A.No.382/2008 :19: have also not intimated this incident to concerned police or to the control room through phone. He has stated before the police about advising the accused’s son Urnesh and deceased Dharmappa.

11. PW.4 - Halappa has deposed that, he knows deceased. accused and juvenile offender. Accused and her son used to quarrel with deceased as he was drunkard and also on the ground that he is not maintaining the family and also on the allegation that deceased had developed ffliclt intimacy with one woman. Accused and her son Umesh committed murder of Dharamppa about 8 months back. He further deposed that, at about 2.30 or 3 a.m. near the house of Dharmappa 3 to 4 persons were present. Peeping through the window, he saw that accused Laxrnavva sitting on the chest of deceased throttled his neck and Umesh pressed the pifiow on his face. They also noticed that Dharniappa was lying F- (I i) •)i)M on lit rot d 3kc in. lVâ ov us tlic ( at nic hr ci 1k 1 i’ iitii %%t 1 1!) tEat Is I “iii e ii Cit Wd% fe trig tiI ht Ii 101 I t s” in tot ii M ‘vheii h’ ‘“ EM’! itfl) W iii.Iov k c dii’ 1)hannappa was St liQiJing 1k %JW LhC sic icicut thujIthijc, 1’Inu tt’cLid1w ‘it’ll W( fl’ ar.ingjng The rot 1.0 %leCJ). lie noticed that Ii s,., no a bs’foTe tiw j’o& o that he ha’ lnUw%%eLl tli .iic idem t. h g ) 1 1 •i. 1 j 1 11’ S’o Allk ha ‘ I1IlC’,% iiitl In has [i’lflht 1 Ha ‘Ii. C 1 1 ) ‘i1 !‘“ a I•I ‘,ic’ hj —‘tr;s Ti a ij, % P • rt 11 ,1d

11.1 ‘ ‘‘ I %Iil jfb • I ‘ . 3 ‘ ‘I - 1

1. II 14’, • 3 ‘! ,1 • I. I •3 I’ CrI.A.No.382/2008 :21: house and handed over the same to the mortuary along with documents.

13. PV- 11 — Shivabasavva Hanumappa Naregal working as Special Officer. 1-IDMC has furnished the sen’Ice particulars of the deceased. PW-12 — Shanrnukha working as Junior Engineer drew the sketch of scene of offence. PW- 13 - Swamirao working as Assistant Engineer. HESCOM. speaks about the supply of electricity in the night of

7.7.2006 at about 3.00 a.m. PW-15 - Wajid Is the seizure pancha.

14. PW. 17 - Dr.Kotrabasappa shivappa Itagi conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased. He had opined that the death is due to asphyxia consequent upon manual strangulation. He has also stated that the time of death cannot be stated as body was kept in cold storage prior to post rriort ciii examination. ‘*t”VII) wot, K. ‘

14.W1 ltaitP.1UN)’4S ‘(ld.iM1’ T.i(Il 11 1 ) P31 UI ‘Ix (‘J Zft )S1 1LUilS4) 1Sf)) tullE’ Ut) )OOc‘YOt: iiiflTiL’UIuJ).J’ffl’(Iati’)‘1‘1‘11tJ7111fl’qal—i tiettn’1 )Nil P11114 ‘3(3 II’ K P jit’uluioa nit.md pauuiq )WPS 0) )up tWitj$)L0’‘fluI%!?t4V.ttL..)ti’ vc!cIT’r13L)T.Wd Itild 41 U() tT( S I.) ifl’ ,(V )tt;L‘I,1 bOA >,• I •t 1 j.-’t’I .: ‘, i’ ‘II1 e’ aT • . J i’ip • A a ) (,4n;’h2 3(04 llant4i’t€tiith1tpra jictiC ii W111’li tL)fliplciI’l’ d’ Ut” E WI’ ( h( 3 i Stct i ‘lot IPC I( ‘IsIte(I Liiid V I):Iiier2alianlcl. lit condh it’d nqut’-t i.tiirhinania. Hr apj.,rrhrnckcl acc”is’-d Nn I :iiitl jiiveiult offender Lrr C and n. d thc U klan- I t’flt t • PW2 IC arnj. IC Ruth 4 12 Vtum..zi’tr ;nid (‘W 3 t.rnr%1i Kr:%11Ii1. lie stind tilt— ti1it’lt in liii 1 lit posr%sh 4’ ni a •ust 4 find I en a c-led tIn r ciL1ntarv st.tteiuthflt i ii ii’ ol’tt u-ct nit St C I )( ii’ i. 1 C -OIL ‘Nfl (Ii II”!) Plf?t ‘-(it ,t.% ••. LrI’ t!’ L I •t. t• i tL’ • LI

1. II. c- t u!i II - ‘1 I ‘ 1( II .t I I I’’ 2’’ i’s N) (ott Ml C) t — I pflii £ awful Uthltl%cil (If the mint’ i”ith’ii’t’ f 1V% LI be gal ed iii \o 1 ‘Sc. ‘. C 1 .fl inciden xc inred I ha’.. it is •stabl shed that .orh th an used were in that hnuse on the ttttejiij niszhr 1 ri. is nc hint hr i ‘hi out the r s-exam S I at u%e(1 st & 2. r ollit-i p soit ha an aece s to that. hc,tise flurtioit. is c%tal)hisht-d that act ‘istil N .1 ani ierc pi — ill 1 h’n’st ulc i . i.i 1’ 11w I 5 0 t C (7 In 1% “ tix ni oc rcKh S i L- ii. ncr I t ‘.4. t4%( •,‘-1’ !t H’” el-’’ •.. it. ‘ i. (fl • ‘li’L% I i1!iai • K’’ ‘i U ‘t ‘‘ •4( I C Ii 1 d ‘bI fi’ I 111 In ic N ( 5 (it’ciIh ‘. nm r!. rht., C tore. ti’miiatrc ‘ileet of the t•’ Kittiet .)d:lllCriI )V Lfli flr.4’i9Itjflfl t’’up’t’I with :iot. I) c ) t Cl S I I I 1 •Iilt1iiflpi pnints out tosird’ 11h’ ‘1iI1t “1 the’ j ‘TS’ Iii dC’ Li’Wd 21 iri.il Court ha’. ob’enud that with the t i i 4 . dith h 1) (ii estibish d. flit nilci e 1 P4Vs 3c mci 4 Is ucIIV]flL ini4 te’ attrac the acts • ornmurtt ii 1w the f. “fl xeIc c fl4vc1tsim Liii thc ‘cqdr ws cd’eltc vtii i”,hc . liii’ Is c’”il’i be te,j from hit t ‘ idt u 4 pr iS It 1 nh , c’ lot cd I ‘ Ii FZ 1 i all WI) ‘ II .uL)’ ‘i1. I a ‘ a ) k 1’’ 1) ‘1 c ( “‘a •. Ps4’’ 1: “ i’¼ ‘t a’ 51 Ii •1 a ( .jl i ‘ r ‘aI,c. I ,, ‘a g.c•‘;a [ME)jfV II()I%%IILLLLIU U’ [U\p.)%11)M’q PUT C )‘11 .. (LI ‘lI III LI Idit “.i.j [ij%) t[i4JtatL’.TflL4P1I:fl•!IIQ)’fl’LIll_I rcldi:tjjuruiiini_j 1 111 1 1 1’ 1 jflLx4R .141 .i10U1?•‘ll’ ?trIIuoJ‘V t.I ILl aip110!.ni%oxd i.x’ap p. PcToja.p 1P.I! ‘U LII Ut L Jt P I 7luqjpr10PjflIkiLjl(iapuagojnitiJ)II)S.1314qi-uflI(){fl )S) I s( 110 iLL S uorsc)411 )U•H [flipt’\pJ%il 414IiOIJI fliTqotai1.ir jSfl13) 7tfl\ -U°U’IT’1dtut,) I I) I InI‘)!13.4L1’ IUtL(i—1i(tfll_I .LI11%. )T i’.i,r IidM‘!IL “a 1’! ‘1 3 •J “:‘r.“I.!t‘1.’u•j•‘41.’1”’LaT;;liiPJ{ —ii ‘n :‘ —I’: I Ig I II .11 —•‘ • II It• .1.jit —. • a- 27: Crl.A.No.382/2008 He has deposed that since the deceased had illicit relationship with some other woman, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not in good terms with the deceased. His evidence Is that the deceased informed him that both accused were picking up quarrel In

background of alleged illicit relationship with some other woman Is not under specific challenge. Though it is brought out In the cross-examination of PW1 that he does not know the family affairs of the deceased, It is significant to note that the suggestion made to him to the effect that the deceased had illicit relationship with one Laxmi and that whenever accused No.1 was visiting Bellary, one Laxml of Heggeri used to reside In the house of deceased. This suggestion made to him specifically establishes that the deceased had Illicit relationship with Laxml. Though It Is not brought out by the prosecution that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the said Laxmi, it. is brought out by the accused in thc cross-examination of P.Ws. 1. 2 and CrI.A.No.382/2008 :28: 14 that the deceased had illicit relationship with Laxml. It is In the evidence of PW2 that he came to know through the deceased that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not keeping good relationship with the deceased in the background of the illicit relationship with one lady. It is in his cross-examination that It is known whether deceased illicit relationship with one Laxmi of Heggerl. Suggestion was made to him suggesting that the deceased had illicit relationship with Laxmi and that the deceased expressed with him that Laxmi repeatedly brought pressure on the deceased to marry Laxmi. These answers brought out in the cross-examination of PW2 further amply supports the motive attributed by the prosecution. The evidence of PW14 is deceased and accused No. 1 were not in good terms In the background of Illicit relationship of the deceased with some other woman. It is In his evidence that he was informed by accused No.1 that the deceased 0 1 N V 1- u a C cI I I I I i—,Iltilts)%ji:i’W•)T1jj’.)_IUT4J.IIIL ‘eliJi. - Dali piTIUtI ticsS)JI s.j %ll \

1.’ .1(4 •)i%I ‘751 ) I U) ) I ‘itt ci’ tft)flflh)lId(1(’%Lb)Ihlifl•)ttl 4;’ tIlJ 23!gTi1 •‘ %.t: Sq .)“. )CI1 I Ii ‘ 11 I I %teq1UTflL)%wd S1ai.n‘)sIpnaqa ii11.4111(1 up? .niic’w IPLU.aqj Uhf) ICLLIPULl ) I- I.. I: 4 1 jflhi?‘f;lIf’:l 4MI717fl’1L1!I.1lJ 4UT1’%)Lfl ,.m pI I.It‘. i”. rI )L 11’ TU P’ jj%jk1)111’Pt)tI’u1itT&’I’.’“il.P)1dt’’jI%iTttsqfl% 1St’ 1 .1 1% I -j1I:)t1.’r’ II-)’ • ii1) • I’—’l !‘T- -! .1 A 1 1 I T I n -LAl I . s’‘‘ 1 .jj;TI•I.., lijii’(jgi! •.i IC I••‘I•-Iii’’.•?-JII - I i’•‘L •-‘ ! ,•hI? .1I I. ,VII • I) I •)•( ‘I. it. .32. K £ lit t VI(tCP%t 1)1 \l((i( .t1 (Mit’ £ 1% that .s..th nas ‘1 tat 11111 ‘Ii

1. 1’ j 1 “1 lint i Ifl een I i’i-in I lilt h ( ,Ltr{ C’)’ ‘riiri•’g Jci r %1fl)flh1% tI)t impiwurd judgru in and onvu !ln:j.

3. b’ nieti Ct)UIitl It’j tlti’ rCpOlsdt lit %t1I)flUi&, IlIcit 11(1 s1I)ir1(% vit1it Intinc.. ‘n jhn .:ppeJazt • Cc ..i%cd \cJ pie’.. me if 1” .) cflC 4 1 d ii tf I _ti it 1 I,..) Pj ) C. i ‘ I ) r C •il- ii- ‘ C )f II r itr ‘‘s ‘a liii 1w ey Vii %% tV- aid 1 1 Ii i’ • not I ‘i e’.’nnc j .. t ‘11% 24 1 Itt qia—tie • itiaT in—c’ (rn flLI’ .1[’ip( r tilt I. ‘ltc b’cl 1. iUI4.Vr 1 ta’ L ‘ n’ s i i’I. • •. r C \ lii 1 1 1 .J) V ( V i.1. II • t , ‘2 k 1 i ii,’ ifl-t 2 /ii—i2 I’ i I -o ii j H H •1 o’rH 2 i’I Nc F 0 ‘1 t pi CSCI1t ‘111 1101120 iioti( jilL. (lead ho(l\ Tic 1111 to mc S( H l)harri oH Rh T I I \\iil I I lF( mont a OIl 00101 n Hi it to C I arihet In tORI I (11 1 1 tS( ‘I \o.° H (1 (lit N I H t I :id i,niii1 H !Ei’_ iu’I ,1H 1 tit i ,—iij i1 L 4 lit- iiii!t) ]1t(ii:i,)j(iw0 01101 111 1 ‘N 0 1112 . ( 0100 1,1l11;1(t1 ;r icii ‘(ItItr4.V11.) S•i t?1t 1 3 II • 4 I‘PI IU)S PIjI IUh1 ) LI!) ‘ IaIIeLu.I1•iii1;j%• rt’.LfltL.i”.iL•sh‘.4. .a I1:.flN flfl.k%tUJJl •7u;).ckaI%Untj IL‘; clLI% )% ) )‘tfl Ijh)TL X3•fl. o ATILLIPI )tr.4itII!tIPT”P1Ipa!..v11.1.)(J ILIT; a(’Ll‘P1 •t.j14)‘‘It;’‘IiflhI!I)U..lfl’II!.LPjIitd 3La!aI1ITLI.?.i)Itt[j_ 9 Pt 14 13 ER p[O UTSI 3I9.ailTII ‘Ifip)JaIi1.U‘1.14Wlii’ p •‘J 7’ii i‘i’uipu:I.’LIJ!P‘J1’1I{gP.ITLI.’I? ) (1$ I1P l1’j. 1) ;?leT.:1t Ii ‘I. :js. L —,J! •h e j.; I ‘1i’‘i’_.i’F. .,p,__ ; I ‘.•‘ 1,•.T! J j ijP ‘S )IJ I I , .•• [.t •.i .14t1% (‘rI.A.No.382 /2008 34: PWs. 1 and 2. He did not notice blood stains on the ground. There was swelling on the left cheek. Though this wit ness Is cross-examined at length. 1101 hing is elicited to disbelieve the test irnony of this witness.

27. The Trial Court mainly relied evidence of PWI4 and also extra-judicial confession of accused No.2 made before PW14 and also the opinion of the doctor that death was due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation and also the motive for crime I.e.. the deceased was having illicit relationship with one Laxmi. which has not been disputed and also that deceased was having bad vices like consuming alcohol and not contributing money to the welfare of family had caused bitterness In the relationship of deceased and his wife. Since the deceased was frequent iy consuming alcohol. accused Nos. I and 2 both decided to do away with the life of Dharmappa and committed murder of Dharmappa, who Is none other than husband of accused No. 1 and father of 2(q ct(’( I I%tL1 X,.2 fl: Ilk iIi%iJIi’ J%t’, U:’ ‘tI e •‘ ‘(j j11. ir—’! ‘4 LI’ ‘ 1’’’aIfl”iii’I’ ‘ I.e.. )It ‘j • ck. Ct1’t I \ ‘ ‘ L ii t 11.I 1st ii Cu - ‘;‘—t • .ii’n v”JlIbl1hc(I 11 ‘u&e tiltit st.k’ 1.1’ alt “(4 C a’!,’! 11Ii(I.’l Si ti1(’Ii 313 Cd .P.C’.. hO t\lt t finn I’ Øf Cif ‘1 C-\c”j)l ck iii in 9M ineflha)lilallnt cvidenee. 1n I ital (nut I las -ilso 10114(1 Oh St .11) 1 10f (if t.jt’ 11 (11d11. E idnivw’ trt. : ( e1rr.lii ji.pic n ‘ I r’ “ira. dii ía -t 9 rjl1v witli,i the kncn ecIQc. ‘. ac-c isell. _ it 1 at dl hucclei. lu” on tic prrse (II ui H- e- —, th • 0 -u’.tiscl\cs.l -a]. nec p. n . 1-’ I s :lcl’ Ntii isI lili-ce. Lw I. (1 c r v .“.Chfl(( 1,)S)J1 1) _ 1j I I I I h ‘ ( t xp4jf i’’ t) ti3 - .( ti -it £ J 1 . f .i I-’ i i’ I V C S ii wE t I IT I . C i-i(.t hut il—it ‘ T(P( jl1c .1 et.1. 1-itt’ I 1? ii jt a )1 l(,( C 4444( ‘fl)77’4.‘X1.1., IOiSflpL4)• 19 1“‘‘,IL‘31 JOg1’l‘bi irr; ‘dlV’7,0”14)11h%J.)pLI.1fl9U’d lIflQ)L•Lsi i7ll.11.)fll ilfl%P)1flL’’ti UL( 1“-fl1)IkLIt P 1I.)Jfi)•91R’J ‘I’1—TMitid 1O1’.)iC.M)tTl )J1jG .I))IJ4IqIJJP_1L’>)’itIfl)TITJ‘3113 ‘,1 )1I’t( )II1. )o”‘iop)IirIYIOIL ‘IL):ajsan’i.14,jII ‘U IflJ’U1)i1JO1’)1TPT_flLII 61 IiS’ inxT.noIIoJ )I’4GKO p.’bSslUS()‘41V(IL’kjililIJIl)‘iTLIT “.1‘4113SITabp ‘ coc>1 143 ‘1(S‘U?4, )(aVC3141.1’ I I .s IL. ‘I