STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M.MUNIRAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the classic appeal whereby challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.297/2011 dtd. 13/12/2016 and the case ended in acquittal for the offence punishable under Ss. 306 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860. In this appeal, the appellant/State is seeking for consideration of grounds as urged and consequently, to set-aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and convict the accused for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) The appeal is slated for orders relating to consideration of death certificate of respondent No.1 / accused No.1 namely M.Muniraja, S/o late Narayanappa. Respondent No.1 died during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal against him stood abated.

(3.) Learned HCGP for Appellant / State submitting that the entire case relates to the offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC and wherein respondent No.1 is the main accused. But respondent No.1 / accused No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, he submits that the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the grounds urged in this appeal and more so, the co-accused Nos.2 and 3 namely Smt.Lalithamma and M.Manjunatha are the wife and son of Respondent No.1 M.Muniraja. But the role of accused Nos.2 and 3 do not have any consequences and more so, not in conformity with the role of accused No.1 - M.Muniraja who is no more. Consequently, learned HCGP in this matter fairly submitted and consented for disposal of this matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal keeping in view the submission made by learned HCGP and so also, the defence theory put forth by the counsel for the accused during the course of subjected to cross- examination of the witnesses which have been let in by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in S.C.No.297/2011. Learned counsel Sri C.R.Bhaskar is on record and he represents Respondent Nos.1 to 3 / accused Nos. 1 to 3 who were facing of trial before the trial Court. But the defence theory for having subjected to examination of the witnesses on the part of the prosecution and that theory has been elicited by the counsel for the accused before the trial Court and the same has been taken into consideration and also consideration of the grounds as urged in this appeal for disposal. Appeal is nothing but of a continuity of proceedings and more so, it requires for re-appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 17 and so also, documents as per Exs.P1 to P21. But no material object has been got marked and no defence evidence has been let in on the part of the accused.