Case: State of Karnataka Vs. Bhoja Poojari

Chitravathi (since deceased) was the daughter of Kirodian (PW 3) and Amba (PW 5). They are the residents of Bombay. On 28th November, 1976, Chitravathi was married to Bhoja Poojarithe first respondent herein. After marriage the couple went to the native place ofat Kalwar and stayed there for one and half months.then came to Bangalore and after staying there for a week or so, he returned to Kalwar where his father was ailing. One week thereafter,along with Chitravathi came to Bangalore. Parents of Chitravathi who had come to Bangalore went to Kalwar to see their daughter. Chitravathi told her parents that she was being harassed for dowry and ornaments. At that time, Chitravathi was in her fifth month of pregnancy. Chitravathi, her parents and brother ofthen came to Bangalore at the house ofat Chikkanna Garden.did not appreciate the coming of Chitravathi at his house at Chikkanna Garden as he was then staying with his mistress Parvathithe second respondent herein. Parents of Chitravathi were very much disturbed on finding2 at Bangalore. Chitravathi and her parents thereafter went to Mangalore at their relatives house and after staying there for one and a half months, they returned to Bombay along withon or about 3rd November, 1977. According to the prevailing custom, parents of Chitravathi celebrated Seemantha ceremony as she was in her seventh month of pregnancy.stayed at Bombay for about one and a half months and thereafter left for Bangalore. Chitravathi on 2nd Feburary, 1978 was blessed with a female child at Bombay andwas informed by a letter but, however, he did not respond to the same. Since there was no response fromChitravathi told her parents that she would go to Bangalore and stay withand would face the difficulties which might arise. Chitravathis parents, however, did not approve of it immediately and made her to wait at Bombay until the naming ceremony of the child was over. The child was named by Nalini. Some time in the month of August, 1978, Kirodian (PW 3) along with his daughter and grandchild came to Bangalore. When they came to the house ofat Bangalore, they sawalong with her three children was residing in the house ofKirodian (PW 3) then advisedto look after his daughter and the child properly and thereafter he left for Bombay.While leaving for Bombay, it is alleged by the prosecution that Kirodian (PW 3) told Chitravathi that he would be sending money on the address of Guruva (PW 19) who would pay the same to her. This arrangement continued for some time but in January, 1979, when Guruva (PW 19) received a money order from Kirodian (PW 3), he informed him that when he went to the house ofat Chikkanna Garden on two occasions, he found the house locked and on enquiry, the neighbours informed him that one day Chitravathi, Nalini andhad gone to see a film at 1.00 p.m. and thereafter they did not return. Kirodian (PW 3) on January 15, 1979 received a letter (Ex. P5) purporting to have been written by his daughter stating that she was going to a place which was 13 miles away from Bangalore and she would inform her new address, till then money order be not sent. Kirodian (PW 3) who was conversant with the handwriting of Chitravathi did not believe that the said letter was written by her and suspecting some foul play, he wrote back to Guruva (PW 19) requesting him to go and find out the whereabouts of Chitravathi. On 15th of May, 1979, Ananda son of Guruva came to Bombay and told Kirodian (PW 3) that whereabouts of Chitravathi, Nalini andwere not known. Kirodian (PW 3) then on 29th May, 1979 came to Bangalore and after making enquiries with the neighbours ofresiding at Chikkanna Garden, was told that Chitravathi and Nalini were taken byat 1.00 p.m. and since then they did not return. One of the neighbours also told thathad taken Chitravathi and her daughter to watch a film show. Kirodian (PW 3) then made several attempts to find out the whereabouts of Chitravathi and her child but without any success and therefore, on 3rd June, 1979, he lodged a missing report/complaint at Central Police Station, Bangalore (Ex. P56). The police also searched the missing persons at various places but they could not find them nor could they get any clue. On 11th July, 1979, Kirodian (PW 3) lodged a complaint (Ex. P3) suspecting the murder of his daughter Chitravathi and Nalini. The crime was accordingly registered for an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation,was apprehended by Veera Basappa Raju (PW 22) at the Byatarayanapur bus stand and was produced before the CPI who arrested him. During interrogation, he voluntarily made a statement to point out the place where the dead bodies were buried. Accordingly, mahazar (memorandum) was prepared in the presence of the panch witnesses after obtaining the permission from the Sub Divisional Magistrate to exhume the dead bodies. Investigating Officer along withpanch witnesses, medical officer and photographer went to the Sarvodaya School compound as per the direction of1 then pointed out the place where the dead bodies were buried. The dead bodies were kept in the gunny bag which was then taken out of a pit. They were in a highly decomposed condition. The Investigating Officer carried out the inquest panchanama on the dead bodies. The articles which were found on the dead bodies and in the pit were seized under the panchanamas. Dr. B.C. Chandra Gowda (PW 23) performed the autopsy on the dead bodies. B. Raghavendra Rao, Serologist (PW 12) carried out the test after superimposing the skull.was arrested on 1st August, 1979. After completing the investigation,2, the respondents herein were put up for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC.Both the accused/respondents herein pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. According to them, they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime.There is no direct evidence to the crime in question and, therefore, the prosecution case entirely rested on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and such circumstances must complete the chain. Such proved circumstances must exclude any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence of the accused and they must be pointer to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses to prove these various circumstances and the evidence thereof will be dealt with each

Reasoning:
7. The first and the most important circumstance that prosecution has to prove is whether the two dead bodies exhumed on 14th July, 1979, were identified beyond reasonable doubt to be that of Chitravathi and Nalini. The two dead bodies were kept in a gunny bag and were found buried in a pit and then filled with earth. This pit was near the shed ofin the Sarvodaya School compound. The dead bodies were exhumed on 14th July, 1979 on the basis of the statement made byunder Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and then pointing out the place where the dead bodies were buried. As regards the identity of the dead bodies, the trial court accepted the evidence of Kirodian (PW 3), Amba (PW 5), Siddaiah (PW 9), Venkatachalaiah (PW 11) and Kempegowda (PW 13) as credible one. This ocular evidence finds corroboration from some of the M.Os. (Muddemal articles) which were found on the dead bodies. Out of these articles, Karimanisara (MO 9), toe rings (MO 10) and pieces of bangles (MO 11) were found on the dead body of an adult person whereas ear ring (MO 12), talisman (MO 13) and pair of anklets (MO 15) were on the dead body of the child. These articles were identified by Kirodian (PW 3) and Amba (PW 5). They testified that these articles were given to Chitravathi and Nalini by them. The trial court succinctly discussed the evidence of PW 3 and PW 5 in a great length and found the same to be trustworthy. The High Court has disbelieved the evidence relating to the identity of these MOs on the ground that the same are commonly used and found in the market and, therefore, from this evidence, the identity of the dead bodies could not be said to have been conclusively established. We are unable to subscribe to the doubt entertained by the High Court in this behalf. It is true that all these articles (MOs) are commonly used by the womenfolk but Amba (PW 5) stood well during herand asserted that these articles were given to Chitravathi and Nalini by her. We, therefore, find that the High Court was not right in setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court as regards the identity of these MOs.It is not and cannot be disputed that the two dead bodies were exhumed on 14th July, 1979. The evidence of Dr. B.C. Chandra Gowda (PW 23), Kempegowda (PW 13), the official photographer and Mr. P.V. Kowri (PW 27), the investigating officer was quite sufficient to conclude that the two dead bodies were exhumed on 14th July, 1979 from the place pointed out byThe High Court in our considered view was not right in rejecting the prosecution evidence as regards the identity of the two dead bodies being that of Chitravathi andis also sufficient material on record in the form of evidence of Krishna (PW 16), Venkatgirappa (PW 18), Guruva Poojari (PW 19) and Sarojamma (PW 20) who had stated that they were residing in the nearby huts/houses and used to hear and see quarrels between Chitravathi,2. At times,used to say that he was fed up of quarrels between Chitravathi andThere is nothing in theto disbelieve their evidence. The trial court accepted the evidence of all these witnesses on the issue of ill treatment and quarrels as trustworthy and for no statable reasons, the High Court has discarded the same. We, therefore, do not agree with the reversal finding of the High Court on this issue.The next circumstance, namely, motive to commit the murder of Chitravathi. The same has to be inferred from the conduct of2. Both the accused wanted to get rid of Chitravathi for the obvious reasons that her stay in the house at Chikkanna Garden was a great nuisance to their illegitimate conduct. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly proves the motive on the part ofto get rid of Chitravathi so that he could stay withe trial court accepted the evidence of Kirodian (PW 3) and P.V. Kowri (PW 27), investigating officer and came to the conclusion that after January 12, 1979, both the accused were absconding. Dr. B.C. Chandra Gowda (PW 23) has stated in his evidence that deaths might have occurred four to six months earlier. There was no effectivein this behalf. The High Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in this behalf in proper perspective and has fallen into error while disbelieving the prosecutionevidence of P.V. Kowri (PW 27), the investigating officer also confirms the fact that both the accused despite their best efforts could not be traced at their known places. This circumstance, in our opinion, is again very important link to show their guilty mind.The trial court on the careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the prosecution has successfully established beyond every reasonable doubt thatwas responsible for causing the death of Chitravathi and Nalini and was also responsible for having caused disappearance of evidence of murder of Chitravathi and Nalini. Consistent with his findings, the trial court vide its judgment dated 12th November, 1980 convictedunder Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and for an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, sentenced him to suffer RI for seven years. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.filed an appeal against his order of conviction and sentence whereas State of Karnataka filed appeal against the order of acquittal ofThe High Court of Karnataka by its common judgment dated 17th January, 1983, allowed the appeal filed byand acquitted him of all the charges and also confirmed the order of acquittal ofBoth the courts below have acquittedof all the charges. In our considered view, the order of acquittal ofneeds no interference.