GEETHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction dated 30.08.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court II, Shimoga in S.C.No.82/2010 is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused. The appellant/accused was tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that, the deceased Srinivasa Naika is the husband of the accused; he was aged about 25 years and that the accused was aged about 20 years at the time of incident; out of the wedlock, a child was born, who is aged about 8 months; the deceased was a drunkard and he was not doing any work; on the other hand, the accused being the wife of the deceased was going for work and earning; consequently she was maintaining the family; the deceased was addicted to alcoholic drinks and he used to consume alcohol regularly throughout the day; in that regard, there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased in their matrimonial house; after the marriage, couple were living with the parents of the deceased; since the quarrels between the husband and the wife used to take place, the parents of the deceased advised the deceased to live in a separate house and consequently, the deceased and the accused started residing in adjoining house along with their child. When the facts stood thus, it is alleged that the accused committed murder of the deceased in between 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on 16.05.2009 by strangulating him with a nylon rope; the neighbours came to the spot after 3.00 p.m. and came to know about the death of the deceased. Even the complainant Naganaika the father of the deceased also came to the house at 3.00 p.m. from coolie work and came to know about the death of the deceased. The complaint came to be lodged by P.W.1 the father of the deceased at 11.45 p.m. on 16.05.2009 i.e. after the lapse about 12.00 hours of the incident. Crime No.176/2009 came to be registered by P.W.15 (Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police) attached to Tunga Nagar Police Station. Thereafter, the investigation took place.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses and 16 Exhibits and one Material Object. On behalf of the defence, no document was marked. However, during her examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has stated that she was not in the house but she had gone outside for washing the clothes and she came to know about the incident only after coming back to the house. On evaluation of material on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused.