Case: Praveen Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore by her judgment dated 4.2.2002 in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1994 found the appellant herein guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 397 IPC and awarded the extreme penalty of death for an offence under section 302 IPC. She also awarded RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/for offences punishable under Section 392 read with section 397 IPC. For confirmation of the sentence of death, she referred the matter to High Court of Karnataka in Criminal (RC) 2 of 2002 while the appellant also preferred an appeal against the judgment and conviction before the same High Court. The High Court by a common judgment dated 28.10.2002 while dismissing the criminal appeal of the appellant accepted the reference and confirmed the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court. It is against the said judgment of the High Court the appellant is in appeal before us.The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant is the son of the brother of one of the deceased Smt. Appi Sherigarthy. About 3 years prior to the incident the appellant used to stay with said Appi in her house at Vamanjur, Mangalore Taluk, doing tailoring work. After his marriage he shifted his residence to his native place namely Uppinangadi. Said deceased Smt. Appi had 3 sons and 3 daughters. Her one daughter Shakuntala and her daughter i.e. theof Appi by name. Deepika were staying with said Appi while Shakuntalas husband Jayanthawas employed at Muscat. Appis another son Govinda was also staying with her in her house in Vamanjur onroad.3. It is prosecution case that on 24.2.1994Kumari Revathi a 12 year old girl who used to supply milk to the house of Appli had gone to that house as usual at 7.30 a.m. But on that day even though she called out for said Appi there was no reply but she could see Appi having fallen on the floor with blood by the side of her body. So she returned to her house and reported this to herwho is turn went to the house ofSuresh Kumar and informed him about the said fact.then went to the house of Appi along withand they too got no response when they called out for Appi so they came back to the house and told the mother ofabout their efforts to contact said Appi. Prosecution further alleges at about 10.30 a.m.went to bring some vegetable along withto the shop ofFlacy Lobo at that time they informed her of what was noticed by them in the house of Appi.then accompanied PWs.1 and 2 and came near the house of Appi and entered the house which was found open from the Southern direction and they saw Appi lying dead with bleeding injuries. When the went to another room they saw son of Appi, Govinda also with bleeding injuries and in another adjacent room they found the dead bodies of Shakuntala and Deepika with injuries on their needs.Flacy Lobo sent PWs. 1 and 2 to their house and she herself came and informed her husband about what she saw in the house of Appi and requested him to inform the Police.tor of Police, Mangalore Rural Police Station then was at a place called Pachanady at about 11 a.m. in connection with the investigation of another crime when he received a wireless message about the finding of 4 dead bodies in the house at Vamanjur within the jurisdiction of Rural Police Station, Mangalore.then immediately went to the place of incident and securedand recorded his statement as per Ex.based on which a case was registered against unknown persons in Crime No. 46/1994 for offences punishable under sections 449, 302 and 308 IPC and an FIR was sent to the court. He also sent messages to the District Police Office to send thent expert. In the meantime he held inquest over the dead body of Appi in the presence ofChandrahasa Rai and others as per Ex.He further held the inquest over the dead body of Shakuntala in the presence of some Panchas and drew up the inquest Panchnama Ex.Gopala Krishna Shetty S.I. to hold simultaneous inquest on the dead bodies of Govinda and Deepika which was done as per inquest Panchnamas Ex.and 5 respectively.then sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination and recorded the statements of4, 5 and CWs. 8 and 10 i.e. Ramani and Seetharama Poojary respectively. In the meantimeint expert came from Mangalore and in the course of his examination noticed someon the almirah which he lifted.4. From 25.2.1994 the investigation was taken over and continued byJ. Papaiah, Circle Inspector, who during the course of Investigation examined and recorded statements ofSeetharam Gurpur,Sarojini and other witnesses. During the course of said investigation this I.O. came to know that the appellant was a visitor to the house of deceased. On 28.2.1994recorded the statement ofJayanatha and on coming to know of the possibility of appellants involvement in the murder he sent his staff to apprehended the accused which was done on 2.3.1994 and he was produced before31 Manohar Soans S.I. at about 10.30 p.m.5. Prosecution further alleges that on his interrogation the appellant made a voluntary disclosure statement which is marked as Ex.wherein he stated that if taken to the place concerned he would show where he had hidden the ornaments, cash and the weapons used in the crime. Since it was already late on that day the I.O. on the next morning i.e. on 3.3.1994 secured the presence of. Satish Mallya and2 others and took them to Uppinangadi as indicated by the appellant. On the way he took another PanchB. Rama Bhat. Prosecution alleges that on reaching Uppinangadi the appellant led them to a bamboo bush located in a hillock in the areca garden belonging to his father. The appellant then went near a bush and took out a bundle tied in a kerchief and opened the same. After opening the bundle it was seen that it contained jewellery which were seized by the I.O. in the presence of Panchas, thereafter the appellant led them to a place wherethe sickle used in the attack on the victims was recovered at the instance of the accused. During the course of investigation, certain receipts and chits were recovered from the shop ofunder Panchnama Ex.and a chequeAfter completing the investigation a chargesheet under sections 302 and 392 read with 397 IPC was filed against the appellant before the trial court. The case of the appellant as could be seen from his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is one of total denial.7. In the absence of any direct evidence the prosecution relied upon certain circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant. The trial court considering the material placed by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established beyond all reasonable doubt the followingThe relationship of accused with the family of the deceased.2) Motive3) Homicidal death of the deceased.4) Possession of valuable ornaments and cash by deceased Shakunthala and others.5) Recovery of stolen gold ornaments, cash belonging to the victims and bloodstained shirt of accused and weapon used for offence from / at the instance of the accused.6) Presence of accused within the vicinity of house of deceased on the relevant day and conduct of accused before and after commission of offence.7) Presence of finger prints of accused at the spot.8)of the incriminating evidence that appeared against him by the accused.It is based on these circumstances having come to the conclusion that each and every link in the claim of circumstances have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt the trial court found the appellant guilty, hence convicted him as stated above.9. The High Court relying on the very same circumstances agreed with learned Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court.

Court's reasoning:
16. At this stage it may be worthwhile to notice the fact that the appellant had earlier pledged certain gold ornaments belonging to his wife with a finance firm at Mangalore in the year 1993. This fact was established by the evidence of the proprietor of the said firmwho deposed that during the months of August and December, 1993 the appellant availed of loans from his finance firm by pledging gold ornaments which was redeemed on 25.2.1994 (a day after the incident) by discharging the loan. According to the prosecution this loan obtained by the appellant by pledging his wifes jewellery was discharged after pleading some of the stolen articles from the victims on 25.2.1994 withThe appellant in the course of his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has not given any explanation how and in what circumstances he got the money to release the jewellery pledged by him as far back as in the year 1993 immediately after the incident in question. The factum of the appellant pledging his wifes jewellery in the year 1993 and its redemption immediately after the murder is established not only by the evidence ofbut also from the documents of the firm where the jewellery in question was pledged and then redeemed. Prosecution has further established that part of the stolen jewellery belonging to the victims in this case was also pledged witha financier. This factum has been established by the prosecution by examination of the said financierand the jewellery so pleaded was recoveredunder Panchnama Ex.on 3.3.1994. Even in regard to the evidence ofno motive whatsoever has been attributed to allege that the said witness was deposing falsely. The factum of pledging of these jewelleries belonging to the victims immediately after their murder and redemption of jewellery of his wife by the appellant pledged as far back as in the year 1993 immediately after the murder establish two facts. Firstly that the appellant was in need of money for which he had to pledge his wifes jewellery. Secondly appellant came into possession of sufficient money to redeem those jewellery of his wife immediately after the murder for which the appellant has no explanation. Therefore, in our opinion the prosecution has been able to establish two very strong circumstances through the evidence of PWs. 10, 13, 21 and 25 that the appellant was in possession of the jewelleries belonging to the victims which were found missing immediately after the murder was detected and the appellant had hidden part of the said jewellery in his fathers property and pledged toa part of the jewellery belonging to theThe further case of the prosecution is thatone of the sons of deceased Appi who was working in Zambia had sent a cheque for Rs. 5,000/in the name of his sister deceased Shankuntala to enable her get a telephone connection for their house and from the evidence ofVinayak Kamath who was the Branch Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Gurupur, during the relevant time, the prosecution has established that this cheque was encashed by Govinda, brother of saidand one of the deceased on 23.2.1994 in the evening prior to his death. Said cheque which was encashed was seized later by the Police under PanchnamaThis evidence in our opinion establishes the fact that on the date of incident apart from the money that was given to Shankuntala by her husband, there was also a sum of Rs. 5000 which was withdrawn from the back which generally corresponds to the amount recovered from the appellant who has no explanation for the possession of the said cash.In this background if we examine the evidence ofBavu who is a vegetable vendor near the house of the deceased, who has stated in his evidence that he had seen the deceased on the night of the incident near his shop which is situated in the locality where victims house is situated. Learned counsel for the appellant however contended that there is an improvement in his evidence inasmuch as in his evidence before the court he had stated that the appellant was then in the company of Govinda one of the deceased but in his prior statement to the Police he had only stated that he had seen the appellant near his shop. We think in regard to the fact that appellant was seen near the shop of the witness there is no improvement and to that extent his evidence is consistent and believable. In this context, it should be noted that the appellant is working and residing in Mangalore, a place far away from Vamanjur and the appellant has not given any explanation for his presence in Vamanjur in the evening of 23.2.1994.25. The prosecution has also further established from the evidence of30 that he had picked up fingerprints of the thumb which tallied with the corresponding fingerprints of the appellant which also indicates the fact that the appellant was in the house of the deceased at about the time of the incident in question because those fingerprints were picked up immediately after the investigation of the case started.26. From the above evidence like the two courts below we are also satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that though the evidence upon relied by it is circumstantial evidence, it has established every link in the chain of circumstances which is consistent only with the guilt of the accused hence we are in agreement with the findings of the courts below recorded against the appellant.27. While considering the question of sentence, the trial court had noted that the appellant to satisfy his greed had hatched a diabolical plan and committedpremeditated murders including that of a young child who were his relatives andIt was also observed that the appellant had shown no remorse for his action and even escaped from judicial custody and was absconding for a long period of 4 years which indicates that he has no respect for law. On facts it came to the conclusion that the case in hand was one of the rarest of rare cases calling for extreme penalty of death sentence and having found no extenuating circumstances which would justify a lesser sentence, imposed the sentence of death under section 302 IPC. The High Court after discussing theon the subject and after giving its anxious consideration to the sentencing policy laid down by the statute and the philosophy restated in Bachan Singh etc. vs. State of Punjab etc. (AIR 1980 SC 898 ) agreed with the trial court that the facts of the case called for the extreme penalty of death, hence while dismissing the appeal of the appellant accepted the reference made by learned Sessions Judge.28. Before us the learned counsel appearing for the appellant strongly contended that the appellant was aged about 31 years at the time of the incident in question and because of certain financial conditions he was led to commit this crime and there being no other previous complaint of criminal activity against the appellant, he should be given a chance in life to rehabilitate himself hence a lesser sentence of life imprisonment may be more appropriate on facts of this case. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka reiterated what was observed by the two courts below and contended that the courts below were justified on facts of this case in imposing the maximum penalty of death.29. As noticed by the courts below, so far as the factors to be taken note of while awarding the extreme penalty of death are concerned, it is settled by various judgments of this Court, reference to which has already been made by the two courts below in their judgments. We have independently considered the facts of the case and find no reason whatsoever to differ from the view taken by the two courts below even in regard to the quantum and nature of sentence. The appellant was aperson at the time of the crime and should be attributed with sufficient knowledge of the consequences of his act. The act in question cannot be construed as an act of revenge or arising out of a situation wherein the appellant was constrained to commit murders. Hardly 3 years before the incident in question, Appi the aunt of the appellant had accommodated him in her house despite her large family and gave him an opportunity in life to make an honest living as a tailor. He left the house of Appi not out of any misunderstanding or disappointment but because of his marriage and shifted his residence to his parent village of Uppinangadi wherefrom also he moved out to Mangalore to eke out his living as a tailor. The appellant has only himself to blame for his financial losses which was as could be seen from the records, due to his addiction to alcohol as also his gambling habits and it is because of this he had to incur loans and as alleged by the prosecution it is for satisfying his addiction, he planned to rob the family of the victims even at the cost of their lives. In the process he did not even bother to spare the life of a young child. As noted by the trial court the conduct of his in absconding from judicial custody for nearly 4 years, also indicates the fact that the possibility of any rehabilitation is nil. The act of murder of 4 innocent sleeping victims without any provocation whatsoever from the victims side indicatesd approach of the appellant to attain his goals, however illegal the same may be. In such circumstances we are in agreement with the courts below that the only sentence that would befit the facts of this case is that of extreme penalty of death which was rightly imposed by the trial court after due consideration and affirmed by the High Court also after independent consideration of the entire facts of the case.