M. NARASIMHAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 13.6.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court -II, Chinthamani in Sessions Case No. 90/2010, is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Shivamma is the second wife of the accused; two children were born out of the wedlock between the deceased and the accused; one child was born out of the wedlock between the deceased and his first wife; after eight years of the second marriage, disputes arose between the accused and his second wife/deceased; the accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally pressurizing her to get money from her parents place, in as much as, her two brothers were in government job at Bangalore; the accused was a poor person; since the deceased practically deserted the accused and started living in her parents place along with the children, accused used to pressurize the deceased to join him and to lead matrimonial life; the accused was normally living with his first wife and the child, since the second wife/deceased started living in her parents place; the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased in as much as, he was of the impression that the deceased had illicit relationship with one Andhra Narasimhappa/driver of a tractor and in that regard, he had grievance against the deceased; about five days prior to the incident, the accused came to the parents house of the deceased and started living in the said village; he used to accompany his wife to the agricultural lands for getting fodder for the cattle; on the date of the incident also i.e., on 31.5.2010, accused and deceased left the house of the parents of the deceased at 9.00 a.m. to go to agricultural land for bringing fodder; P.W.1 -the mother of the deceased/complainant saw the deceased and the accused going together for bringing fodder from the agricultural land; till night, neither the deceased nor the accused returned back to home; the in -laws of the accused i.e., the parents of the deceased and other relatives in the village searched for the deceased as well as the accused, but they could not get any clue; on the early hours of 1.6.2010 i.e., on the next date of the incident, the relative of the deceased namely Anjamma told P.W.1 that the dead body of the victim is found lying in the garden of Gowdara Ramanna; the parents of the deceased and others rushed to the garden land of Gowdara Ramanna and found the dead body of the deceased. The head of the deceased was crushed with stone, the clothes of the deceased, the place wherein the deceased was lying and the stone were all blood stained.

(3.) SRI .Vishwanath Poojary, learned advocate for the appellant taking us through the entire material on record and the judgment of the Court below submits that the accused is falsely implicated in the crime; the accused was not at all present in the village and consequently, there was no question of he accompanying the deceased to the land for bringing fodder during the relevant date; the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved beyond reasonable doubt; the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the last seen circumstance which alone is not sufficient to bring home guilt against the accused; the prosecution has relied upon three motives for commission of the offence and none of these motives is proved by the prosecution; PW.8 (brother of the deceased) being the Police Constable working at Bengaluru foisted the case against the accused. On these among other grounds, he prays for acquittal of the accused.