BANDE NAWAZ Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has called in question in this appeal the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him in S.C. No. 24/2006 dated 22.01.2007 wherein the Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur, has convicted the appellant accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three years.

(2.) THE brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, a person by name Basha s/o. Mohammed Sab Eligar of Niradoddi Mudagal, lodged a first information report as per Ex. P1 before the PSI Mudgagal stating that himself and his three sons and one daughter were residing at Niradoddi Mudagal. There was talks of marriage of his daughter Reshma to be given to the accused and in that regard they had talk with the mother and father of the accused who are no other than the sister and her husband of the complainant. But the father and mother of the accused refused to take said Reshma in marriage to the accused and they directed the complainant and his wife to look for some other bridegroom for their daughter. In this background, it is alleged in the first information report that on 04.11.2005 on the Ramzan festival day the son of the complainant by name Mohammed gone out and he did not return on that day. Inspite of their best efforts they could not be able to search his whereabouts. On the next day the brother of the complainant Mohammed has informed them on previous day of the Ramzan festival the accused Bande Nawaz has taken the son of the complainant Mohammed along with him. Having received such information, the complainant and his wife had been to the house of the accused and enquired the father and mother of the accused. They also disclosed that the accused also did not return to the house since previous day. The complainant and others again made all their efforts to locate Mohammed and Bande Nawaz, but they could not be able to know their whereabouts. Again on 08.11.2005 in the morning the complainant along with his brother Mahiboob Sab and the some villagers by name Rasool Sab and Basha Sab all of them had been to the house of the accused and accused very much present in his house and they enquired about Mohammed the son of the complainant. Then he disclosed that he was not happy with the complainant and his wife because they did not give their daughter Reshma in marriage to the accused. Therefore, in order to take revenge against them he took the son of the complainant to his land and committed his murder by throttling his neck in the pumpset house. On receiving such information, the complainant had been to the police station and lodged a complaint. Thereafter, the police have registered a case in Crime No. 111/2005 investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet before the Court.

(3.) AS could be seen from the 313 of Cr.P.C. statement of the accused there is no specific or special defense taken by the accused but it is general denial of the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record has delivered the judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused accordingly. The appellant herein could not be able to engage a private counsel therefore, this Court has appointed Sri Shivashankar H. Manur, as Amicus Curie in order to assist the Court.