(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, dated 7th November 1998. The learned Sessions Judge, by the said Judgment, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. , and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, with default Clause and he was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This judgment is challenged on many counts as could be seen from the grounds pleaded in the appeal memo filed by the appellant.
(2.) THE Police Inspector of Dowry Prohibition Cell, C. O. D. , Bangalore, laid the charge sheet against the appellant and two others, alleging the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B, and 302 I. P. C. , and also for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant and two others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I. P. C. , and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and A. 1-appellant was specifically charged for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. along with other offences. The particulars of witnesses examined, the documents and the material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution are furnished in the annexure list to the judgment.
(3.) IN this Appeal, we have heard the arguments of Sri. K. Shankarappa, learned counsel for the appellant - first accused, and Sri. B. C. Muddappa, learned Additional S. P. P. for the State. Though this specific ground is not pleaded in the appeal memo by the appellant, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has adopted a mode forbidden in law for recording the joint statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , and therefore, the trial is vitiated and the appellant is entitled for an order of acquittal. Learned counsel has relied upon the pronouncement of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sharanahalli Revanna (1997) 2 Kant LJ 374. One of us (Justice H. N. Narayan) was the member of the said Division Bench. Sri. B. C. Muddappa, learned Additional S. P. P. , however, contended that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Vaijinath v. State of Karnataka (ILR 1993 Kant 543), is applicable to the facts of this case, and this Court has to allow the appeal and remit the matter for examination of the accused persons separately as required under Section 313, Cr. P. C. with a direction to the Trial Court to proceed from that stage.