VENKATESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction passed by the Fast Track Court No. IX, Bangalore dated 5.10.2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 185/2007 is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Sunitha was a married lady; her husband Jayarajan was a car driver; two children were born out of the wedlock; since her husband was staying at Pandavapura town as driver of the car and as the said Jayarajan used to visit the house of deceased Sunitha on weekends, Sunitha and her children were staying with her grandmother; the complainant is the nephew of deceased Sunitha and he was also living in the very house. Deceased Sunitha and accused Venkatesh were working in Caramel bakery situated at Longford Garden, Shanthinagar, Bangalore. The accused developed intimacy towards the deceased and started pressurizing her that she should not talk with any other person; he used to get angry whenever he saw Sunitha talking with other boys either in the bakery or outside and he used to quarrel on the said ground with her; he had even complained regarding this to the complainant(P.W. 2) and grandmother of the deceased. The accused of late started pressurizing her for sexual favour. However, such requests were negatived by the deceased.

(3.) SRI . Raju, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the convicted accused taking us through the material on record submits that the Court below is not justified in believing the version of P.Ws. 1 and 5; the motive as alleged by the prosecution is not proved; the weapon used for the commission of offence is not a dangerous weapon; the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment and in heat of passion. Thus, according to him, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused, in the alternative, he submits that the accused is liable to be convicted for a lesser offence.