MALAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased is the wife of the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused used to frequently quarrel with the deceased over financial issues. On 10.06.2010 in the night, the accused is said to have picked up a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted her with an axe over her head and face and murdered her. On the next day morning, one of the neighbours having found the deceased dead informed the matter to her daughter PW-14. She lodged a complaint before the Pavagada Police. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.78 of 2010 was registered against the accused under Section 302 of IPC. Investigation was taken up. On the same day, the accused was arrested in the bus stand at about 2.00 p.m. by PW-15. On the basis of his voluntary disclosure, the weapon used for the commission of the offence and the blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered from the house of the accused. On completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid.

(2.) The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced in evidence 22 documents and 6 material objects. The accused took up the defence of total denial and did not choose to enter into any specific defence. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has approached this court.

(3.) The learned counsel Shri Pavan Kumar G., Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused contends that the conviction of the appellant is contrary to the evidence on record. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has pressed into service only two circumstances, namely the last seen theory and the recovery of the weapon. The last seen theory is not substantiated with cogent and convincing evidence. Even the recovery is effected from the house of the accused. Therefore, the conviction of the accused is perverse and deserves to be set-aside.