MANJA NAIKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 31.01.2011/03.02.2011 made in S.C. No.84/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Chikmagalur.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under: The deceased Chowdegowda is the husband of accused No.2 herein. PW.1 Krishnamurthy and PW.5 - Theja are son -in -law and son of the deceased and accused No.2, respectively. It is alleged that accused No.1 who is resident of Yegati village, situated at Kadur taluk, had illicit relationship with accused No.2. Whereas the deceased and accused No.2 are residents of Kengenahalli village, Chikmagalur taluk.

(3.) SRI A H Bhagavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences. He further submits that the alleged motive that accused No.1 had illicit relationship with accused No.2 wife of the deceased is not proved and all the material/circumstantial witnesses namely, PWs.1 to 5, PWs.8 to12 have not supported the case of the prosecution but the trial court erred in convicting the accused solely on the ground of alleged seizure of chopper MO.1 and clothes of accused No.1 namely, MOs.2 and 3 at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively; that the alleged chopper MO.1 seized at the instance of accused No.1 though stained with blood, the serology report is negative and PW.10 Shivakumar who has been examined by the prosecution to prove that he had seen the deceased with the company of accused No.1 on that night of incident has only deposed that he had seen accused No.1 in the company of deceased on that night at about 7.30 p.m. but he has not supported the case of the prosecution to prove that again seen the deceased in the company of accused No.1 as stated in his statement before the police and that during the cross - examination of PW.1 the defence has elicited that on the night of incident at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased was not in the company of accused No.1. Therefore he submits that the trial court erred in convicting the accused though there is no cogent and satisfactory evidence placed on record. He submits that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.