LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus LAKSHMANAIAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ STATE OF KARNATAKA A v. LAKSHMANAIAH JULY 21, 1992 [KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] B ---1 Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 30o-Murder of wife-Acquittal of husband by High Court~ High Court not considering P. Ws. evidence of husband's maltreatment and c - assault of wife for money-Rejecting evidence on flimsy ground of discrepan- cies-Factum of accused absconding not discussed-Acquittal set aside-Trial Court order of conviction and sentence-Upheld. _.I.,, The respondent in the appeal was tried for the murder of his wife and also for stealing his mother-in-law's property. The prosecution alleged D that the respondent accused used to demand money from his moiher-in~ law through his wife and he had executed two promissory notes for Rs. 2,000 and Rs.3,000 in favour of his mother-in-law towards the money he had .borrowed from her. He became disgruntled when his mother-in-law -r· refused to comply with his demands, and his wife declined to help him i' E getting more money. As a consequence he started abusing, ill-treating and assaulting his wife. A few months before the occurrence the mother-in-law brought her daughter and her children to her house. After sometime the accused also came to reside at the house of his mother-in-law. I On January i2, 1979, a close relation of the mother-in-law came to F ~ their house at 4 p.m. On that day apart from the accused, his wife and two children, the mother-in-law and her younger daughter were present in the house. The accused gave Rs. 30 to his wife which she further gave to her mother for buying clothes for the children so that they could wear the same on the ensuing 'Sankranti' festival. The mother-in-law and her younger G daughter went to the market to buy clothes for the children. Thereafter, the accused gave Rs. 2 to the relative and sent him to the market to bring -\ 'heralikayi'-a vegetable. Therefore the accused was left alone in the house with his wife and two small children. When his mother-in-law and her younger daughter came back from the market they found the two childr~n crying outside the house. On entering the house they did not find anybody H 579 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R. A inside, and on further search they found the dead-body of the wife in the 'y- bathroom, her head ducked in the bucket full of water. A case was registered with the police. The accused was found absconding, and was arrested on January 16, 1979. The accused was put up for trial. There was no direct evidence. The prosecution relied on the B motive as disclosed by P.W.26, the mother-in-law, P.W.27 her younger daughter, and PWs 24 and 25. The presence of the deceased and the accused in the house of P.W. 26 on the evening of January 12, 1979 as deposed by P.W.17 the relative and P.W.26 and P.W.27. The accused sending P.W.17, P.W.26 and P.W.27 to the market for purchasing of clothes C and vegetable and the deceased being left alone with the two small children. The accused going towards the bus stop holding his suit-case in his hand on the evening of January 12, 1979 as seen by P.W.14 and corroborated by P.W. 20 and P.W.22, and the conduct of the accused in absconding from the evening of January 12, 1979 till he was apprehended on the night of D January 16, 1979. The Trial Court relying on the evidence of P.W.25, P.W. 26 and P.W.27 came to the conclusion that the accused used to maltreat and assault his wife because she refused to get money for him from her mother, and that the. evidence of P.W.17, P.W.26 and P.W.27 proved the cir- E cumstance that the accused manipulated to send the three witnesses out of the house on the pretext of buying clothes and vegatable from the }- market. Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, but acquitted him of the charge under Section 380 IPC. F The accused appealed to the High Court and a Division Bench set aside the order of conviction, and acquitted the accused. It held that there was variance in the evidence of P.W.26 and P.W. 27, and found contradic· tion in the statement of P.W. 26 and the F.I.R. Ex. Pl, and concluded that the prosecution has not succeeded beyond reasonable doubt to establish G that the accused had managed to send P.W.26 and P.W.27 out of the house at that point of time. Allowing the State's appeal, reversing the High Court judgment and restoring the Trial Court judgment, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.