DAYANANDA AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction convicting accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC passed by the Fast Track Court -V, Madhugiri in S.C.No. 182/2008 is appealed against by the convicted accused No. 1 in Crl.A.No. 545/2012.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Roopa married accused No. 1 on 24.5.2000 at Dharmasthala. Accused No. 1 belongs to scheduled caste whereas, deceased Roopa is from Banajiga community. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of accused No. 1. Accused No. 4 is the sister of accused No. 1. Accused No. 5 is the husband of accused No. 4; Accused No. 1 was an employee of the Court working as Process Server whereas, deceased was working as Typist in the Assistant Public Prosecutor's office attached to Sira Court. Deceased and accused No. 1 lived happily for about three years and a child by name Abhinandan was born. Subsequently, all the accused started torturing the victim on one pretext or the other; accused No. 1 used to pressurize the deceased to raise loan and to give her entire salary to him; accused No. 1 was addicted to alcoholic drinks and used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally; since the deceased did not agree for the illegal demands of all the accused, the accused collectively committed murder of the deceased by assaulting her and after committing the murder, the accused in order to screen themselves from being prosecuted, set the dead body on fire by pouring kerosene and kept coconut leaves on the dead body.

(3.) DURING the pendency of trial before the Court below, the Public Prosecutor filed application seeking permission to produce certain additional documents by way of additional evidence, such application came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the documents sought to be produced during the course of trial were not part of the charge sheet; no explanation is forthcoming as to why such documents are not placed on record by the Public Prosecutor earlier; the documents appears to be created, in as much as, none of the documents were signed by the deceased though such documents were allegedly the letters written by the deceased; it appears to have been created subsequent to the incident for the purpose of trial of the case. Be that as it may.