YASHWANTH BHANDARY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the convicted sole accused in S. C. No. 11 of 1998, challenging the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08. 11. 1998 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada Mangalore finding the accused guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 302 of I. P. C and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-The deceased Taj Begum was the daughter of Adam Saheb and Zuleka of Moojur village, she was frequently visiting the house of her aunt Fathimabi (P. W. 3 situated at Bengre-Padubidri; P. W. 2 Balkis is the elder of deceased Taj Begum who is also residing with her husband at Bengre-Padubidri; the accused is also the resident of Bengre; D. W. 2 Vinaya D. Bhandary is brother of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that since three months prior to the date of incident; the accused was teasing the deceased Taj Begum whenever she was moving on road; the deceased had complained about the same to her aunt P. W. 3 who in turn had reprimanded the accused; that about fifteen days prior to the incident the deceased Taj Begum again came to the house of her aunt and she was staying with P. W. 3 at Bengre; on 20-10-1997 at about 2. 45 p. m, when the deceased was walking by the side of Bengre-Padubidri road near Andipunar tree, the accused with an intention of committing the murder of the deceased stabbed the deceased indiscriminately on her face, chest, neck abdomen and on other parts of her body with a knife (M. O. 6); on hearing the cries of victim, P. W. 1 Hassan who was known to accused and deceased and who was passing by the side of the road ran towards the spot and saw the accused stabbing the decease; after seeing P. W1, the accused ran away towards Padubidri along with knife; P. W. s 2 and 3 also came to the spot after hearing the cries of the deceased and saw the incident; as there was profuse bleeding because of the injuries sustained by the victim, the victim was shifted to Mulky Government Hospital which is about 5 K. Ms away from the scene of offence in a car by the P. Ws 1,3 and others; the doctor after examining the victim, declared her dead and thereafter the complaint was lodged by P. W1 at about 4. 30 p. m on the very day before Padubidri Police. The same was registered in crime No. 89 of 1997 by PSI. P. W. 10 for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of I. P. C; P. W. 9 the police constable carried the First Information Report and delivered the same at about 7. 55 p. m. to the jurisdictional Magistrate at Udupi which is about 30 K. Ms away from the police station, the Police Inspector (P. W. 11) arrested the accused at about 6 p. m. and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex. P. 9 on the basis of which the weapon (knife-MO. 6) used in the commission of offence was recovered under Panchanama Ex. 4 in the presence of P. W. 6 Vishnu Kumar and another; the clothes of the accused M. Os. 7 and 8 were seized under Panchanama Ex. P. 5 in the presence of P. W. 7 and were sent to chemical examination. After recording the statements of relevant witnesses, drawing necessary mahazars, after obtaining serology report, postmortem report and after completion of investigation, the inspector of police P. W. 12 laid the charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) ON committal and on framing of the charges, as the accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried he was tried in Sessions case No. 11/1998 before the Principal Sessions Judge, D. K. Mangalore. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, in all has examined 12 witnesses and got marked Exhibits P. 1 to 12 and material objects 1 to 8. On behalf of the accused-appellant apart from examining D. Ws. 1 to 4, got marked Ex. D. 1 to D. 6. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Court below found the accused guilty of the offence for which he was charged. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence the present appeal is preferred by the convicted accused.