SHYAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of conviction dated 21.1.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court -III in S.C. No. 324/2008 is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that, the deceased Nirmala was the wife of the accused; they were living together after the marriage; they used to quarrel frequently even in respect of small matters; few days prior to the incident, the accused was quarrelling with the deceased on the ground that the deceased had stolen his mobile phone or that she is the reason for the missing of his mobile phone from the house; at about 9.45 p.m. on 17.10.2007, the accused came along with his wife in his auto rickshaw to the shop of the complainant and purchased one cigarette and left the shop; at about 11.00 p.m., once again the accused came in the very auto rickshaw along with his wife near the shop of the complainant and told him that the auto rickshaw has met with an accident and his wife has died in the said accident; the complainant saw the dead body of the deceased in the auto -rickshaw; the accused had requested the complainant to call the ambulance for shifting the dead body; however, the complainant being feared, informed about the said matter to K.R. Puram Traffic Police; the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police (PW.13) rushed to the spot along with the ambulance and shifted the dead body to Bowring Hospital. The deceased had sustained number of injuries all over the body. PW.1 - complainant being suspicious about the conduct of the accused and about the death of the deceased lodged a complaint as per Ex. P1 at 9.30 p.m. on 18.10.2007 before Mahadevapura Police Station, which was registered in Crime No. 286/2007 for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 of IPC. PW.15 - Inspector of the said Police Station completed the investigation and laid the chargesheet.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 19 witnesses and got marked 28 Exhibits and 5 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, one exhibit came to be marked. The accused examined himself as D.W.1. As mentioned supra, the Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, convicted the accused for the offences with which he was charged.