http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: GEETHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/12/1999

BENCH: G.T.Nanavati, S.N.Phukan

JUDGMENT:

NANAVATI.  J       The  appellant  and  her husband were  tried  for  the offence  punishable  under Sections 302, 392 and 201  I.P.C. In  the  Court of the Additional Sessions  Judge,  Bangalore City  in  Sessions  Case No.  175 of 1990.   The  allegation against  the  appellant was that on 30.10.1989 between  4.30 and  7.30  p.m.   she  murdered Rajeshwarl,  tOok  away  her ornaments worth Rs.  50,000/- and thereafter, tried to cause d-iaappear"ance  of the evidence by putting the dead body in two gunny bags to dispose of the same.’ ::  -.  .  -

     ln  order  to prove its case, the  prosecution  mainly relied  upon  certain circumstances which according  to  the prosecution  clearly  indicated  that it was  the  appellant (A-1)  who  had  committed  the  murder.   The  trial  Court believed the evidence partly and held that Rajeshwari died a homicidal

     death  and  that  she  was seen in the  house  of  the appellant.   on  30.10.89  at about 4.00 p.m.   It  did  not believe  the  evidence regarding recovery of the dead  body, the  ornaments and clothes of the deceased from the house of the  appellant.   It was of the view that time mentioned  in the  recovery  mahazar created some suspicion regarding  its correctness  and  there was also inconsistency  between  the evidence  of P.Ws.  1, 2 and 3 on one hand and the  evidence of P.W.  6 on the other as regards the manner in which those articles  were  seized from the house of the appellant.   It then held that the evidence was -insufficient to lead to the only  conclusion  that  the appellant and her  husband  were guility  of  murder and the other offences alleged  to  have been  committed  by  them.  Taking this view the  the  trial .Court  acquitted them.  The State feeling aggreived thereby filed an appeal before the High Court.  After reappreciating the  evidence the High Court held that all the incriminating circumstancss  have been satisfactorily established and  the chain  of  circumstances  was  so   complete  that  it   was reasonable to conclude that accused No.  1 had committed the murder  of  Rajeshwari.   As.  it did  not  find  sufficient evidence against the husband of the appellant, his acquittal was  maintained.   It  convicted the appellant  (A-1)  under Sections  302,  392  and  201   IPC.   The  appellant   has, therefore,  filed this appeal challenging her conviction and also the order of sentence passed against her.

     -  3 - We have carefully gone through the evidence led by  the prosecution and also the reasons given by the  trial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Court  and  also by the High Court.  We find that  the  High Court  was  ri.ght  in reversing the findings of  the  trial Court regarding discovery of the dead body and some articles belonging  to the deceased from the house of the  appellant. We find that High Court has given good reasons for reversing the  order  of acquittal of the appellant.  The  prosecution had  led  evidence  of P.Ws.  9,11 and 22 to prove  that  on 30.10.89  at  about 4.00 p.m.  the deceased had gone to  the house  of  the  appe’liant.  P.W.  9 has stated  before  the Court  that she had seen Rajeshwari going towards the  house of  accused No.  1 and she had inquired from her as to where she  was  going, she had replied that she was going  to  the house of the appellant P.W.  11 had also seen her passing by her  house  and  going towards the house of  the  appellant. P.W.   22  had not only seen her going towards the house  of appellant  but  had also seen her entering her house.   This evidence  was  beliaved by the trial Court and it has  a’iso been  believed  by  the High Court.  The evidence  of  these three  witnesses  clearly establishes that the deceased  had gone  to  the house of the appellant at about 4.00 p.m.   on the  date of the incidence and she had many ornaments on her person at that time.

     The  evidence of P.Ws.  2 and 3 further proves that at about 4.30 p.m.  they had seen the deceased sitting in the

     - 4 -

     house  of  the appellant.  P.W.  2 while going to  the house  of his uncle which was just opposite the house of the appe^ant  had  seen the deceased sitting in the  appellant’s house.   P.W.  2 who is an Advocate and also a neighbour  of the  appellant:, had seen Rajeshwari sitting in the house of the  appellant talking with her.  the evidence of these  two witnesses  was not properly appreciated by the trial  Court. The  High  Court  has rightly held that  their  evidence  is available and trustworthy.

     P.W.   4  had good relations with the appellant.   She has stated in her evidence that on the date of the incidence at  about  5.00 or 5.15 p.m.  the appellant had come to  her house  along  with her minor daughter and requested  her  to keep her minor daughter for some time as she wanted to go to bus  stand to see off one relative.  The appellant, did  not return  till 7.15 p.m..  The appellant’s daughter wanted  to go  back  to her house and as she was afraid of  going  back alone  she had gone with her.  She had also taken her cousin P.W.   20 with her.  They found the appellant’s house closed but  the daughter of the appellant peeped through the window and  told her that her mother was inside.  She again knocked the  door  and after sometime the appellant had  opened  the door.   Very  strangely  the   appellant  allowed  only  her daughter  to  enter the house, asked her to wait and  closed the  door.   She was allowed to enter the house after  about five minutes.  P.W.4 and P.W...  20

     ,.   5  - had remained in the house for some time  and during  tth  period  P.W.  20 hqd gone inside the  bed  room along  with the appellant’s daughter in search of a ball for playing.   The  evidence  of P.W.  20 is that  when  he  was searching  for a ball he noticed a leg of some person  lying below  a cot.  He tried to find out what it was and then saw

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

one  dead  body covered with a gunny bag.  He  also  deposed that while returning to their house he had told that fact to P.W.  4.  P.W.  4 has supported P.W.  20 on this point.  The evidence   of   these  two   witnesses  was  challenged   as unbelievable by the ’’earned counsel for the appellant.  But they had no reason to faisely involve the appellant.  On the contrary  P.W.   4  was on good terms  with  the  appellant. Their  evidence  appears to be true and in our opinion,  the High  Court  was  right in placing reliance upon it  and  in holding  that it establishes the circumstance that at  about 7.30  p.m.   P.W.  20 had noticed a dead body lying below  a cot in the bed room of the appellant.

     The  prosecution evidence further establishes that the deceased after going to the house of the appellant was found missing.   The evidence of her husband is that when his wife did  not  return till about 8.30 p.m.  he became  suspicious and went in search of her.  He had also gone to the house of Geetha  ( the appellant ) and inquired if his wife had  come there.   Geetha  told him that the deceased had not come  to her  house.   After  some time he lodged a report  with  the police.

     -  5 - The prosecution also led evidence to prove that on  the  next  day  the husband of the  deceased  was  again -informed  by  P.W.  2 and P.W.  3 that on the previous  day they  had  in  fact seen the deceased in the  house  of  the appellant and therefore the husband of the deceased had gone to  the  police  station and informed the police  about  the same.   On the basis of his statement and the suspicion  the police  took  the appellant to the police station and  there she was interrogated.  She then expressed her desire to make a statement.  Therefore, two panch witnesses were called and in  their  presence the appellant made a statement that  the dead  body, some ornaments and clothes of the deceased  were in  her  house  and  that she would  point  them  out.   The investigating  Officer along with panch witness and P.W.   3 (a  neighbour  and  an advocate ) went to the house  of  the appellant  and in their presence the appellant had recovered the  dead body, some ornaments, a wrist watch and clothes of the deceased.  This evidence regarding discovery of the dead body  was disbelieved by the tria^ Court on the ground  that according  to  the panchnama, the disclosure  statement  was made  at  10.15  p.m.  and recording of it  could  not  have lasted  till  11.15 p.m.  Therefore in all  probability  the panchnama  was  not  prepared correctly and  everything  was Written  in the police station itself.  As regards the  find of  ornaments  from  the house, the trial  Court  held  that evidence

     of  P.Ws.   1,2  ana  3 was not  consistent  with  the evidence of P.W.  6 and therefore also it created a doubt as to whether the ornaments were really found from the house of the  appellant.   The  High Court on reappreciation  of  the evidence  found that the trial Court was not right  intaking this  view.   It  a’iso  found  that  there  was  really  no inconsistcy  in  the  evidence   regarding  sealing  of  the articles  seized  from .the house.  Having gone through  his evidence  we find that the panch witness had not stated that the  seal was kept with him.  The Investigating Officer  has also  in clear terms stated that the seal had remained  with him  and  that  he had not parted with the same.   What  was given  to.  P,Ws.  1 and 2 was the impression of the seal so as  to  enable  them later on to compare the  seat  for  the purpose  of identification of the articles.  The High  Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

has  also rightly pointed out that there is no inconsistency between  the evidence of P.W.s.  1, 2 and 3 on ^he one  hand and  P.W.  6 on the other hand.  ATI these.  witnesses  have clearly  stated  that accused No.  1 ( the appellant  )  had taken  out  the ornaments from a tin which was kept  in  the bath  room.   P.Ws.   1,  2  and 3  have  deposed  that  the appellant   had  taken  the  panch   witness  and  the   .., Investigating  Officer to the bath room and from a tin which was  lying on the ventilator of the bath room, she had taken out the ornaments after removing coir under which they were

     -8-

     concealed.   What  P.W.   6  has stated  is  that  the appellant had taken out ornaments from that tin.  He did not give  further details.  For that reason on^y the evidence of P.Ws.   1,  2 and 3 cannot be regarded as inconsistent  with the ev’.tience of P.W.  6.  Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses  inc’luding  tbe  evidence of P.W.  3  who  is  an Advocate, a neighbour establishes beyond doubt that the dead body and some artic’tes belonging to the deceased were found from the house of the appellant.

     When all these incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant in her examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C.  she merely stated  that  they were false and failed to give  any  other explanation.   The prosecution evidence which has been found reliable  proves that the answers given by the appellant  in her  313 statement were really false.  The appellant did not explain  how  the  dead body and articles belonging  to  the deceased  were found from her house.  She denied that  they. were  found  from  her  house.    This  being  the  case  of circumstantial   evidence,   this   false   denial   assumes importance as it would

     supply  a missing link in the chain of  circumstances. ’»

     In  our  opinion, the High Court was right in  holding that  all  the incriminating circumstances were  established beyond doubt and they were sufficient to come to- "the.

     conclusion  that  it.   was   the  appellant  who  had committed   the  murder  of   the  deceased.   The  appeal.. is.,there’ore dismissed.