SUNDRAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT JYOTIGOWDANAPURA VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH CHAMARAJANAGAR EAST POLICE, CHAMARAJANAGAR, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2009 at about 9.00 p.m., accused went near the deceased Kumara, who was having his food. PW1-Gurumallamma was serving food to the deceased. Accused told the deceased not to harvest the sugarcane crop on the following day. However, the deceased told him that Rechanna had given him money for harvesting the said crop and therefore, he would cut it on the next day. Accused stated that he would be able to cut it provided he is alive. He went into the room, brought the chopper and assaulted on the backside on the head of deceased Kumara as well as on the forehead. Deceased-Kumara sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital. On the following day, deceased succumbed to the injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by PW2, case was registered initially for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC. After the death of deceased, it was changed to Sec. 302 of IPC. Investigation was taken up. Charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. The matter was set down for trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 17 exhibits along with 06 material objects. By the impugned judgment, the accused was held guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, along with fine of Rs.50,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 05 months. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the convict.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, the impugned judgment of the trial court is erroneous and liable to be quashed. The trial court failed to consider the discrepancies in the prosecution case. The prosecution therefore, failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed by acquitting the convict.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, disputes the same. He submits that there are cogent evidence of eye witnesses PWs-1,2 and 5. They have narrated the manner in which the incident has taken place. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. The Trial Court on consideration of the material, rightly convicted the accused. Hence, there is no error that calls for interference.