Sharanappa @ Sharanappa vs State Of Karnataka

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1673 of 2011

SHARANAPPA @ SHARANAPPA ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

STATE OF KARNATAKA ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay S.Oka,J.

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for

the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). For the offence

under Section 302, the Trial Court sentenced the

appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). In the

appeal, by the impugned judgment, the High Court has Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra confirmed the conviction.

Date: 2023.10.12 16:48:27 IST Reason:

Criminal Appeal No.1673 of 2011 Page 1 of 7

3. Reference to few relevant facts will be necessary.

The deceased is Meenakshi with whom the appellant married

on Basavajayanti day in the year 2003 in a mass marriage

programme. The appellant was working as a Coolie at

Mangalore. About 3-4 months prior to the date of

incident, the appellant took the deceased to Mangalore

and started residing together in a rented room owned by

PW-10.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 28th May, 2004

PW-3 Alfred Mathai saw the appellant in the company of

the deceased near Mariyapura Bus Stop. On 30 th May, 2004

a body of a female person was recovered in a decomposed

state. The body was identified as that of the deceased

wife of the appellant.

5. The prosecution case is that on 28th May, 2004

itself, the appellant informed his father-in-law that his

wife was missing. However, he did not file a missing

complaint. The appellant filed a missing complaint on

31st May, 2004. The First Information Report was

registered on the basis of the complaint filed by

appellant's father-in-law on 1st June, 2004. The

allegation made therein was that the appellant suspected

that his wife was living an adulterous life and that was

pleaded as a motive to kill the deceased.

Criminal Appeal No.1673 of 2011 Page 2 of 7

6. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The

first circumstance is of last seen together. The second

circumstance is of the recovery of knife allegedly used

as a weapon of offence by the appellant, at the instance

of the appellant. The third circumstance is that though

even according to the appellant, the deceased was missing

since 28th May, 2004, he never filed a missing complaint

till 31st May, 2004 and he did so after getting the

knowledge of the fact that the dead body of his wife was

found on earlier day.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant has taken us through the evidence of PW-3

Alfred Mathai and submitted that the evidence of the said

witness is wholly unreliable. He also invited our

attention to the evidence of the alleged witnesses to the

Recovery Memorandum of alleged recovery of the knife at

the instance of the appellant. He submitted that both

the witnesses have not supported the prosecution. His

submission is that both the important circumstances which

constitute the chain of circumstances against the

appellant have not been established.

Criminal Appeal No.1673 of 2011 Page 3 of 7

8. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing

for the respondent-State, while supporting the impugned

judgment, submitted that the Trial Court and the High

Court have analyzed the evidence of PW-3 and found that

his version was reliable. His submission is that the

appellant has not explained a very important circumstance

against him that from 28th May, 2004 to 31st May, 2004 he

did not lodge even a missing report with the police. He

submitted that only after he came to know about the

recovery of body of his wife, he lodged missing

complaint.

9. As stated earlier, the case is based on

circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is the duty of

the prosecution to establish all the circumstances

forming a part of the chain. The first and the most

important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was

of last seen together. The only witness examined to

prove the said circumstance was PW-3 Alfred Mathai.

According to his version in the examination-in-chief, the

appellant used to come for work as a helper for fitting

tiles and therefore, he had seen the appellant. He

stated that he was a Electrical Contractor. His version

is that on 28th May, 2004 when he was proceeding towards

Adyapadi Church where he used to go in connection with

Criminal Appeal No.1673 of 2011 Page 4 of 7 his work, he saw the appellant along with his wife near

Mariyapura Bus Stop. He stated that he was not aware

that the woman accompanying the appellant was his wife.

In his examination-in-chief, he has also stated that on

30th May, 2004, he was informed by one Walter Mathai that

a dead body of a woman was found in his property.

Therefore, he proceeded to the said place where dead body

was found. He claimed that he knew the appellant, as he

had come to new building of Adyapadi Church to fit tiles

for nearly 15-20 days. He claimed that he had seen the

deceased lady in company of the appellant on 28th May,

2004.

10. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that

he has not stated anything before the police which is

found in his statement Exhibit D-1 which was recorded

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973. He admitted that in the cross-examination that (a)

he did not state before the police that the appellant

used to come for doing the work of fixing tiles in the

new building of the Church; (b) he has not stated before

the police when he was proceeding towards Adyapadi

Church, he saw the appellant and his wife at Mariyapur

Bus Stop and (c) he did not identify the woman after he

saw the dead body because the face was in bad shape.

Criminal Appeal No.1673 of 2011 Page 5 of 7

11. Further, in the cross-examination he stated that

only when he went to the police station he came to know

who the accused was and also whose dead body it was.

12. Thus, it is crystal clear that what is stated by

the PW-3 Alfred Mathai in his examination-in-chief is a

complete improvement. Therefore, it is impossible to

believe his testimony. Hence, the theory of the

prosecution about the last seen together must fail.

13. So far as the case of the prosecution regarding

recovery of the weapon of the offence at the instance of

the appellant is concerned, we find that both PW-4 and

PW-5 were allegedly the witnesses to the mazhar have not

supported the prosecution. PW-4 stated that he signed the

mazhar at the police station. PW-5 did not depose before

the Court that the appellant, while in police custody,

stated that he was aware about the place at which he had

concealed the weapon of the offence. Therefore, even the

second circumstance pleaded by the prosecution was not at

all established. Only on the basis of the third

circumstance based on the conduct of the appellant, the

appellant cannot be convicted.

Criminal Appeal No.1673 of 2011 Page 6 of 7

14. Hence, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly

allowed. We set aside the impugned judgments and acquit

the appellant of the offences alleged against him.

15. As the appellant has been enlarged on bail, his

bail bonds stand cancelled.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (PANKAJ MITHAL) NEW DELHI;

October 04, 2023.

Criminal Appeal No.1673 of 2011 Page 7 of 7