VIJAYKUMAR SAMUEL JANTLI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 7.9.2010 in between 07:45 a.m. and 08:00 a.m., the accused committed murder of his wife Smt. Jospin in plot bearing No. 32 situated in Ambika Graha Nirman Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, Unkal-Hubli adjacent to Hubli-Maradagi road with means of stabbing her with a knife and causing multiple injuries by suspecting her fidelity to him while she was living in her mother's house at Tajnagar-Ektanagar of Unkal, Hubli since a year. The accused who had come to the house of his mother-in-law during the night of 6.9.2010 and on the next day morning at about 07:30 a.m. on 7.9.2010 when the deceased had left her mother's house for going to attend the work at Dr. M.M. Joshi Eye Hospital, Hubli, where she was working, the accused by following her, assaulted her with knife and committed her murder by causing multiple injuries at the scene of crime and has done her to death. On the filing of the complaint by the complainant, a case came to be registered by the Police for the alleged offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case had been taken up by the Investigation Officer and laid the charge-sheet against the accused by consisting the statement of witnesses as well as the mahazar which was conducted by him in the presence of the panch witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused does not pleaded guilty, but claims to be tried, accordingly plea of the accused have been recorded separately.

(2.) In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 28, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-40 and P-40(a), apart from got marked M.Os.1 to 16. Subsequently, the learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Prosecutor for the State. The learned Sessions Judge held conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The impugned judgment of conviction has been questioned by preferring this appeal by the appellant/accused.

(3.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments has been contended that the prosecution in order to prove the facts of the deceased Smt. Joshpin, who died a homicidal death has placed ample material which includes ocular evidence as well as the documentary evidence. P.W.23 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body and issued post-mortem report at Ex.P-30 which indicates in all 40 injuries inflicted over the person of the deceased. Apart from that, P.W.23 also examined the knife/M.O.4 alleged to have used by the accused for the commission of offence and issued opinion report, as per Ex.P-31.