DODDANAIKA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Chamarajnagar in Sessions Case No. 87/2007 is the subject matter of this appeal filed by the convicted accused.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Puttamma is the wife of the accused; though accused was working earlier as a coolie, he had stopped working prior to 5 years from the date of the incident; deceased was vending green leaf vegetables; accused was addicted to alcoholic drinks and he had become a drunkard; he used to pressurize his wife/deceased for getting money to satisfy his drinking habits; despite protest by the deceased and other family members, conduct of the accused did not improve; accused used to scold the deceased in vulgar language and he used to torture her both physically and mentally whenever the deceased refused to pay him money. One of the daughters of deceased and accused is Doddamma (P.W. 1); she is a married lady and P.W. 5 (aged about 12 years at the time of incident) is the son of P.W. 1; P.W. 2 was living in her matrimonial house separately which is situated nearby the house of the deceased and the accused. One can go from the house of the deceased to the house of P.W. 1 within 2 -3 minutes; the deceased and accused only were residing in their house; P.W. 5 being the child used to go to her grand mother's place (place of the deceased) every morning for getting his pocket money.

(3.) SRI Kaleemullah Shariff, learned advocate for the appellant taking us through the material on record submits that the evidence of P.W. 5 is unbelievable; he draws the attention of the Court that P.W. 5 has deposed that he has seen the incident through the window of the house of deceased; but there is no window to the said house as is clear from the deposition of the investigation officer; except the evidence of P.W. 5, no other material is found against the accused; since there is nothing on record to show as to why the quarrel took place between the husband and wife on the date of incident, the accused should be given the benefit of doubt. According to him, the reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are not proper and correct.