NAGARAJU AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction dated 18.6.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court -III, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore in S.C. No. 356/2008, convicting accused Nos. 1 and 2/appellants herein, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

(2.) ACCUSED No. 1 is the husband of P.W.4; accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 are brothers of accused No. 1 and accused No. 5 is the sister of accused No. 1; the marriage of P.W.4 with accused No. 1 was performed about two years prior to the incident in question and out of the wedlock, a male child is born; earlier thereto, accused No. 1 had married another lady and out of the said first wedlock, a child was born and the said child is now 7 years old; the first wife of accused No. 1 had expired and thereafter he married P.W.4; since P.W.4 was attacked with polio disease, the parents and brothers of P.W.4 used to help P.W.4 and accused No. 1 both mentally and economically; despite the same, P.W.4 was not being looked after by accused No. 1. One week prior to the incident in question, the child born to P.W.4 was suffering from some health problem and therefore, the child was taken to K.K. Hospital situate at Yelahanka; accused No. 1 also came there and he did not want to admit the child to the said hospital, since the reputation of the said hospital was not good; however, the Doctors of K.K. Hospital having felt that the child needs treatment urgently, admitted the child and gave treatment to the child; the child recovered from illness and was discharged from the hospital. At the time of admission of the child, accused No. 1 and his brothers who had come to the hospital had quarreled with the family members of P.W.4 and had went away; they had not come to the hospital to see the child once again later, though the child was inpatient for three days.

(3.) SRI . Jagadeesh B.N., learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants taking us through the entire material on record submits that number of omissions and contradictions are found in the evidence of eyewitnesses; the prosecution has not come out with the true story before the Court; the motive for commission of the offence is very weak; the accused would not have committed the serious offence like murder keeping motive in their mind as alleged by the prosecution; since the child of accused No. 1 was admitted to hospital, the reputation of which was not good, accused No. 1 must have quarreled with P.W.4 and others; since the child had recovered from illness after three days, the grievance of accused No. 1 could not have survived subsequently. Therefore, according to him, there was no intention on the part of accused Nos. 1 and 2 to commit the crime in question. He further submits that the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment and that therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He further draws the attention of the Court to the evidence of the eyewitnesses to contend that the evidence of these eyewitnesses varies from stage to stage and therefore, their evidence cannot be believed at all. On these among other grounds, he prays for acquittal of the accused or for reduction of gravity of offence.