BEERAPPA S/O MALAPPA BALICHAKRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 25.08.2014 in SC No.103/2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Yadgiri by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is somewhat on the following lines viz.,; that deceased Shivamma (CW1) aged about 15 years was the daughter of one Ningamma; said Ningamma and PW.5 Marlingamma and the accused are siblings being the children of one Malappa Balichakra; said Malappa Balichakra had left behind one house property in Koliwada locality of Yadgiri city expressing his intention to give it to PW.6 who is the daughter of PW.5; the accused was unhappy about the same and he was suspecting that PW.5 was intending to give the said property to deceased CW.1 who was a destitute after losing her mother Ningamma, her father having already given up on Ningamma for another woman; accused had filed OS No.20/2011 in the Court of Civil Judge at Yadgiri against PW.5 and PW.6 for declaration, possession and injunction in respect of the said house property bearing City Municipality No.2-11-32 in Koliwada locality of Yadgiri city as evidenced by Ex.P.20; accused had decided to do away with deceased CW.1 in order to remove the hurdle for getting the property all for himself; on account of the threat of the accused, PW.5 had left the deceased CW.1 in the care of father of PW.12 and gone to Bengaluru for earning her livelihood; PW.5 had returned to the native place on 1.8.2012 and on coming to know about the same CW.1 had gone to the house on the same day for staying with PW.5; accused became enraged on account of the same and with the intention of committing her murder on 2.8.2012 at about 6.00 a.m. he went near the house of PW.5 and after abusing her entered inside the house, sprinkled kerosene oil on deceased CW.1 and lit her ablaze and before PW.5 who was outside the house and other neighbouring eyewitnesses PW.1 Mallayya, PW.2 Hanmanth, PW.3 Siddappa, PW.4 Ramesh, PW.13 Mareppa could do anything, he made good his escape; thereafter deceased was shifted to Yadgiri District Hospital by about 8.00 a.m.; on receiving telephonic information from the hospital PW.15, the PSI went to the hospital and also secured the presence of Taluka Executive Magistrate, Yadgiri- PW.14 and recorded the statement of CW.1 as per Ex.P.12; the Taluka Executive Magistrate-PW.14 himself recorded the statement of CW.1 deceased as per Ex.P.13 and later on the same day at 5.10 p.m., CW.1 breathed her last in the hospital; the case was investigated by PW.15 and PW.16 and accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The case having been committed to the Court of Sessions at Yadgiri, after affording reasonable opportunity, the charge was framed against the accused, trial was held during which PWs.1 to 17 were examined for the prosecution, Ex.P.1 to P.20 were marked and so also M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused did not choose to examine any witnesses on his behalf. Thereafter arguments were addressed on either side and on appreciation of the evidence before him, learned Sessions Judge at Yadgiri entered a finding of guilt for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced the accused accordingly by his judgment dated 25.08.2014. It is the said judgment which is called in question in this appeal.

(3.) Sri Nandakishore Boob, learned counsel appearing for the accused fervently submitted before us that the accused is innocent; deceased was having certain health issues on account of which she had committed suicide by self immolation; that taking advantage of the unfortunate death of deceased CW.1, PW.5 in collusion with the police and PW.14 had created a false case against the accused; even the eyewitnesses have turned hostile and only material against the accused based on which learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused viz., the dying declaration as per Ex.P.13 recorded by PW.14 the Taluka Executive Magistrate and Ex.P.12 statement recorded by the PW.15 are shrouded with suspicious circumstances and therefore the accused is entitled to be acquitted.