H S RAJASHEKARA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.6.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-I at Chikkaballapur in S.C No.71/2010 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1/4th of the above sentence.

(2.) Case of the prosecution as narrated in the appeal memorandum is that as per complaint Ex.P.1 dated 8.8.2009, one Samay Singh Meena, Station Master, South Western Railway, Doddaballapur sent intimation to GRP ASI/D.B.Y. stating that Sri. C.A. Nagaraju, son of Angu Reddy, native of Chikkakurud reported that a female dead body aged 29 years found by the side of the track at K.M. 74/800-900 between SMWA-GBD station. This was received by the Sub-Inspector of Police (Railways) Rural Police Station, Yeshwanthpura on 8.8.2009 at 8.30 a.m. and registered a case in UDR No.119/2009 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. On 8.8.2009, one Smt. G.T. Nagarathnamma resident of Chikkakurugud, Gowribidanur Taluk lodged the complaint before the Police Sub Inspector, Rural Railway Police Station, Yeshwanthpur alleging that she is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint, having two daughters and one son namely Kumari Aruna, Sri. Ramachandra Reddy and Anitha (deceased). It is further mentioned in the complaint that about 11 years back, the deceased Anitha was given in marriage to H.S. Rajashekar Reddy, i.e., the accused herein, who is the son of late Somaiah Reddy. At the time of marriage, the couple was happy and out of the wedlock, they were having a daughter Usha, aged 9 years and a son Suhas aged four years.

(3.) The investigating officer after conducting the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Charge was framed against the accused for the said offence. During the course of trial, prosecution examined in all 21 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.38. On the side of accused, no evidence was adduced and no documents were produced.